Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 61

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130


Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs) (June 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Lyncs (talk) at 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Case affected
Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

see User talk:Lyncs/archive1

Suspension of site ban: User:Justanother / User:Justallofthem

Your indefinite site ban is suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and compliance with the following restrictions:

Single account limitation

You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason. You may rename that account provided (i) you immediately notify the committee of the rename; (ii) the redirects from the prior account name remain in place; and (iii) you display a link to the previous account name on your user page.

Interaction ban Cirt

i) You may neither communicate with nor comment upon or make reference to either directly or indirectly to User:Cirt or their contributions on any page in the English Wikipedia. You may not edit Cirt's talk or user pages though you may, within reason, comment within other pages providing your comments do not relate directly or indirectly to Cirt or their edits. The sole exception to the interaction ban is that you may respond civilly on matters explicitly pertaining to you raised by Cirt or any other editor in any dispute resolution or enforcement context.

ii) Should you violate the letter or spirit of the restrictions above, you may be blocked without prior warning via the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard: on the first occasion for up to one week; on the second occasion for up to one month; and on the third occasion for up to three months. Appeal of any blocks is to the Arbitration Committee.

Topic banned from Scientology

You are indefinitely topic-banned from Scientology on the standard terms outlined here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Roger talk 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • Remove all account restrictions based on over one year of good behavior.

Statement by Lyncs

I was conditionally reinstated well over one year ago with the comment at the time that I could ask to have the restrictions lifted following some period of good behavior. I believe that statement was in an email from an arbitrator and can try to find it if needed.

It is now well over one year and I think that I have evidenced my good behavior and good intentions. I do not edit all that much but might edit more in the future. I would prefer to 1) have access to a subject, Scientology, that I am extremely conversant with and 2) not have any live mines that I might inadvertently step onto vis-a-vis interaction bans or the like.

It is not my intention to interact with Cirt and it is currently not my intention to edit Scientology articles but I do not think there is any need to bar me from either at this point. If I do edit in Scientology (which could happen) or interact with Cirt (which is unlikely), I would still be bound by the rules and norms of Wikipedia with the added factor that I will be subject to certain scrutiny so I think it is not inappropiate to grant this request. Thank you.

1. Response to Newyorkbrad: Lifting the one account restriction is the least of my concerns and if that is a deciding factor or a factor of concern then I have no problem continuing editing solely from this account. --Lyncs (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Response to AGK: I could make argument on the merits of the original sanctions and possible injustices but I am not interesting in rehashing that nor, I imagine, is the committee. The fact that I have been back for well over one year and have not had any problems is indicative of the fact that I am not into causing problems. That is an important point. Troublemakers cause trouble. They do not stop because they are now excluded from one area or another. They make trouble where they are. That is not what I am about.

On second thought, I will say one thing of a general nature related to my sanctions. When I started editing here, I edited the Scientology articles as that was something I had been involved with for many years. If you are familiar with that territory prior to the arbitration, the Scientology articles were a battleground of anti-Scientology zealots warring with Scientology zealots with the antis well in control of the situation. But it was noisy nonetheless. I arrived as a non-zealot Scientologist just trying to add some balance and the benefit of my knowledge. While there were and are plenty of non-zealot folks that do not think highly of Scientology, few seemed to accept that there could be a Scientologist that was a not a zealot. To most, especially the antis, all Scientologists were programmed, brainwashed, and agents of the evil OSA. But that is how zealots see things. I made many thousands of edits. My edits were never much of an issue. What was the issue was that I screamed pretty loudly when getting stuck with pins. I think that the project is wiser now on the subject of Scientology. I hope it is wiser on the subject of wiki-bullying in general.

I could discretely canvass my wiki-friends and ask them to speak for me but I am not going to do that. They are, of course, welcome to speak on my behalf if they care to; I am just not going around asking anyone to do so.

I think the fact that no-one feels strongly enough about my request to come over here and object says something also. I think the fact that it is so quiet here speaks for my request, not against it.

In other words, I present the case that my request is almost a non-issue and I am simply looking for the sanctions to be lifted as "time served" with a warning to watch my step in the future or as appropriate. --Lyncs (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Response to Roger Davies: All due respect, but I am not sure what more persuasive argument I can make regarding the two and third issues.

I think the fact that three years have elapsed since the end of the Scientology case and I have had next to zero interaction with Cirt and exhibited zero inclination to harass him in any manner should, IMO, be all the argument I need make. What more can I say? I have already stated that "it is not my intention to interact with Cirt". It is not my intention to interact with Cirt and certainly not my intention to cause him grief. I just do not feel that, based on my evidenced lack of intention to harass him, I need have concern about violating a sanction were our paths to cross in some innocuous fashion. Let me put it a bit more strongly; it is my intention to avoid crossing paths with Cirt where possible and to keep things civil if circumstance puts us on the same page.

Regarding the one account restriction, as I state above, that one I can live with but, again based on good behavior, I also would be fine with having it lifted and simply being reinstated in full. --Lyncs (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

4. Response to "Statement by Cirt": I think it is appropriate to respond to Cirt's points seeing as he posted them as arguments against my request. If the committee feels this is not appropriate then this edit can be undone. I do not think that his arguments against my request are compelling as outlined below:

1. The reason I was blocked in January 2011 and unblocked in February 2011 is because, when I requested reinstatement in January 2011, I voluntarily admitted that I had some months previously evaded my site ban. The Lyncs account was then blocked pending the outcome of my request. I know that such evasion is a serious breach and I have apologized for it to at least one user [1]. I do not know if I have apologized to the community as a whole but I will do that now. I apologize for evading my ban. I do want to mention that I made a total of one mainspace edit under the ban. One [2]. I did not like socking and that is not who I am. I asked for and received reinstatement. This point is a known issue.
2. I think it was my right to remove notices referring to me as a banned user as I was not longer a banned user. The Justa... accounts were never inappropriate socks. They were my main and known accounts. How could they be socks? This whole socking thing was blown way out of proportion and is a bit of a sore point with me. I will expand on that a bit later. I very briefly tried socking, I don't like it.
3. Cirt seems to be making some distinction between my old accounts that I can no longer use as a condition of my reinstatement and me as a user? Not sure I agree with that. I am the user. I used a number of accounts. I was banned. Now I am not banned. My other accounts are not "banned" separate from me. I just cannot use them. I was asked to choose which account I wanted to use going forward. I picked Lyncs. I could have picked one of my older, known, accounts. This sort of stuff actually speaks to why I would like all the sanctions lifted as "time served". I would like to be able to go forward without clouds of this sort.
4. Yes, I have wiki-friends and, yes, I communicate with them. I do not understand why the association of my friend with the arb is important. As regards the quoted comment, as I state in my opening statement here, "I do not edit all that much but might edit more in the future."
5 and 6: See above.
7: I stated that I may want to edit the Scientology articles though, if at all, likely in the same gnomish fashion I am currently editing. I have some ideas for aticles (not Scientology-related) and may pursue those ideas in the coming year. I do not see myself interacting with Cirt, I just do not want a sword hanging over my head on that point.
8: Again, how is a known account a sockpuppet? This account, Lyncs, was briefly a sockpuppet. My Alfadog account for quite some time was simply an undisclosed alternate account as permitted by the then-current rules. It was not a sockpuppet, if by that term we mean something used improperly and in violation of the then-policy on alternate accounts. I was making an attempt to create a identity separate from my known "Scientologist" identity. I inadvertantly made one single edit in the Scientology topic without realizing I was still logged in as Alfadog. I also made a few innocuous edits while under a block. That was inappropriate. So that is the extent of my "socking", maybe six mainspace edits, only one in a hot area. That is why this whole "sockmaster" thing is a sore point with me. That and being raked over the coals over it.

Thank you. --Lyncs (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I took a quick look at Lyncs' 100 most recent article space edits. The edits seem to be fine, but they go back quite far (Aug 2011) and aren't incredibly substantial so there isn't a lot of history to examine. NW (Talk) 03:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

I've been informed by Arbitration Clerk AlexandrDmitri that I may respond to this request, diff.

I have to strongly oppose this request by Lyncs (talk · contribs), for several reasons.

  1. Lyncs (talk · contribs) was blocked in January 2011 for "block evasion", and unblocked in February 2011.
  2. May 2011 = Lyncs chose to remove ban and sock templates from userpages of his (still blocked) sockpuppets, Justallofthem, Justanother, Justahulk, and Alfadog. He also removed himself from the list of banned users.
  3. This is contrary to the terms of his site ban. His other accounts were not unblocked. The siteban was never lifted from the Justallofthem account listed at List of banned users. In fact, the original message posted to Lyncs stated, "You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason." Therefore, removing the sock tags from all these user pages and the notice that the Justallofthem account is (still) sitebanned was and is inappropriate behavior, and indicative of a lack of change in behavior from that which got him sitebanned.
  4. In communication with another party from the ArbCom case that got him sitebanned, diff, Lyncs admits he is "not doing much editing."
  5. Since the unblock on the Lyncs account, he has made less than 200 total edits to Wikipedia.
  6. It doesn't appear that the user has successfully made any quality improvements to any articles (FA, GA, etc.) since being unblocked, that would be a demonstration of willingness to work collaboratively outside the prior topic.
  7. Lyncs states in his request statement that it's not his intention to interact with me, or to edit on the topic banned topic. Therefore, I'm not seeing a need here or positive good done by lifting these restrictions.
  8. Further, the edits (above) by the Lyncs account post-unblock show an attachment to the prior blocked sockpuppet accounts. This indicates the restriction to one account is still necessary in this case.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

I count as a friend of Lyncs' (Justanother), which should be kept in mind when reading the following. But I guess not many people remember this stuff, so after some hesitation I decided to weigh in all the same.

Lyncs doesn't edit much, no. It's chilling to be under restrictions that express so much distrust in one's good will. His continued interest in Wikipedia is evidenced by his remaining a gnomish editor throughout this long period. To me it seems reasonable to believe him when he states that he doesn't harbour any intentions to interact with Cirt or — at present — to edit Scientology articles. I'd be really, really surprised if he even wanted to have anything to do with Cirt. This is not the place to criticise Cirt, but since the 2011 ArbCom desysopped him, the long-time campaign of his protector (who has left Wikipedia, so there's no reason to name her here) to discredit Justanother as an evil machiavellian harasser of the paragon Cirt has perhaps lost some credibility. This ANI thread from 2008, an attempt to get Justanother community banned, is a particularly egregious example. I'm happy to note that the community ban process has been cleaned up some since then. (My criticism of how it worked on this occasion is here, right at the end, in case you can't face reading the whole. It's a very colourful thread, though, especially the.. uh.. different culture evinced in the input from the two Wikinews editors.)

If Lyncs should return to Scientology on a large scale, and/or in a questionable manner, it would surely be easy to reinstate the restrictions. I suggest all the restrictions be removed (unless everybody including Lyncs is happy with the restriction to one account), perhaps with phrasing that provides for quick and simple reinstatement of them, if required. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

  • Addition: comment on the proposed motion. There were three sanctions; two of them have been proposed for voting. But Lyncs has also requested for the interaction ban with Cirt to be vacated, on the argument that it's not needed; that he doesn't want to interact with Cirt and will avoid doing so, stating that "it is my intention to avoid crossing paths with Cirt where possible and to keep things civil if circumstance puts us on the same page". However, Lyncs is unhappy about having to feel continued "concern about violating a sanction were our paths to cross in some innocuous fashion". I'd be concerned too, if it was me; we all know how differently such things can be interpreted by different admins. Cirt's only argument for opposing lifting this ban is the same as Lyncs' argument for lifting it: that it's not needed, therefore lifting it wouldn't do any "positive good". (If I'm reading his reasoning right.) In my opinion unnecessary restrictions are not so neutral that they might as well be left in place; they're depressing and dispiriting. Yet lifting the interaction ban hasn't even been proposed for voting. Is that omission intentional? Bishonen | talk 13:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

With respect to Bishonen above, the topical and interpersonal disputes are in a separate league to the issue of inappropriate use of multiple accounts - the Community has always (to this day) expressed strong views on this issue, given how serious a breach of trust it is. A relevant question, I think, is what caused or tempted the user to the inappropriate use of multiple accounts - did it start off during a dispute in the topic (or with Cirt), did it start off as a matter of generality, or was it well-intentioned conduct that was inadvertantly disruptive (which has now been clarified and remedied)? Unless it is the latter, or this is a case where a single account restriction was completely unwarranted, I would not be comfortable with lending support to the removal of a single account restriction (even with a discretionary sanctions regime). If it did start off during a dispute in a topic or with an user, and that user has subsequently demonstrated there are no issues with his editing in that topic or with that user, then I would agree about the chilling effect - but we are not even at that point yet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved JoshuaZ

I'm not at all sure why anyone thinks there's a need to remove the interaction ban. That seems to be doing its job quite well, and we have no evidence here that the user's behavior has improved in any substantial way. Even more strongly, I see no reason to remove the ban on scientology edits. We're dealing with someone who made a single purpose account to POV push and launch a "campaign"(ArbCom's word) against Cirt. [3] (I strongly suggest that people review that finding of fact and the evidence in the case). That was the finding of fact. So far, we've seen no reason to think that the user even is willing to say that maybe his actions were wrong or against policy. We have no reason to think he isn't going to go back to his usual disruption of Scientology articles. By all means let him edit, and let him do so far away from Cirt and far away from Scientology. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I believe the clerks are preparing to close these motions, with only the first carrying (and the second and third being unsuccessful, as arithmetically impossible). AGK [•] 10:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Question to Lyncs: Does your request include termination of the one-account restriction? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements from the community that what Lyncs believes is appropriately acceptable behavior is indeed so perceived by the community. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The argument to end the unban restrictions is not compelling, and given the absence of discretionary sanctions for this topic I am therefore reluctant to allow Lyncs' (Justallofthem) appeal. However, I too will await statements by the community (if any are to come) before adjudging. AGK [•] 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Standard discretionary sanctions apply to this topic. I am therefore minded to vacate the existing sanctions, even with the appellant's limited edits this year. A motion to this effect could be proposed if my colleagues are of the same mind. AGK [•] 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Just reviewing this to see if we can move it forward. What Lyncs seems to be asking for is
    1. Lifting of the Scientology topic ban;
    2. Lifting of the interaction ban with Cirt (and I'd like to hear from Cirt on that one);
    3. Lifting of the one account restriction.
    The Scientology discretionary sanctions won't address all of this so I suggest that unless we hear more Lyncs persuasively addressing the two and third issues, within say, seven days, we decline.  Roger Davies talk 05:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • While I would prefer to see more editing in a range of topics, I believe that the ARBSCI discretionary sanctions would apply in this case, and would likely be sufficient. Risker (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sort of willing to let the topic ban go at this time, but not then other two restrictions. Courcelles 18:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It is problematic that there are so few edits from which to make an assessment; however, in the absence of concerns from the community, a lifting of the Scientology topic ban seems acceptable as time has passed and we have been lifting restrictions for other editors; also, there are discretionary sanctions in place as well as the SPA remedy to deal with any improper editing. I don't see a need to lift the restriction on using one account, given the low level of activity in the single account; and lifting the interaction ban would be best done in consultation with Cirt - preferably after a period of positive editing. In conclusion, I would decline lifting the interaction ban and the one account restriction, but would not oppose lifting the topic ban. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Motions: Scientology (Lyncs)

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

For reference, the current restrictions on Lyncs (talk · contribs) (who previously edited as Justanother (talk · contribs) and Justallofthem (talk · contribs)) are:

Your indefinite site ban is suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and compliance with the following restrictions:

Single account limitation

You may edit from one account only - currently Lyncs (talk · contribs) - with no exceptions for whatever reason. You may rename that account provided (i) you immediately notify the committee of the rename; (ii) the redirects from the prior account name remain in place; and (iii) you display a link to the previous account name on your user page.

Interaction ban Cirt

i) You may neither communicate with nor comment upon or make reference to either directly or indirectly to User:Cirt or their contributions on any page in the English Wikipedia. You may not edit Cirt's talk or user pages though you may, within reason, comment within other pages providing your comments do not relate directly or indirectly to Cirt or their edits. The sole exception to the interaction ban is that you may respond civilly on matters explicitly pertaining to you raised by Cirt or any other editor in any dispute resolution or enforcement context.

ii) Should you violate the letter or spirit of the restrictions above, you may be blocked without prior warning via the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard: on the first occasion for up to one week; on the second occasion for up to one month; and on the third occasion for up to three months. Appeal of any blocks is to the Arbitration Committee.

Topic banned from Scientology

You are indefinitely topic-banned from Scientology on the standard terms outlined here.

Motion: Unbanned from Scientology (Lyncs)

Proposed:

The indefinite ban of Lyncs (talk · contribs) from the Scientology topic—that was set down (as "Topic banned from Scientology") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated.
Support
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 00:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. The discretionary sanctions are enough of a "Safety net" to make this worth a shot. Would have liked to see more edits, nut it is what it is. Courcelles 00:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. Per Courcelles. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. In the unlikely event there are fresh COFS probelms, DS can take care of the.  Roger Davies talk 06:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  5. In the absence of a compelling reason to continue the restriction I support this; while the meagre edits are a concern, the sanctions in place should deal with any problems. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  7. Courcelles sums up my thoughts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  8. Risker (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  9. With the firm reminder that the topic-ban can be reinstated through enforcement of discretionary sanctions, or by motion of this Committee, in the hopefully unlikely event this becomes necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  10. per most of the above really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. With the lack of edits, I do not have the necessary confidence to support lifting the topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Abstain
Comments by arbitrators

Motion: To vacate single-account restriction (Lyncs)

Proposed:

The indefinite restriction of Lyncs (talk · contribs) to a single account—that was set down (as "Single account limitation") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated.
Support
Oppose
  1. I view this as less significant to the wider appeal, and by his own admission so too does the appellant, but I propose this anyway in the event that there is a belief that the restriction is also no longer necessary. (I oppose because of the history of socking, but would not oppose a further amendment to remove this condition at some later time.) AGK [•] 00:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. No case for lifting this has been made. Courcelles
  3. Premature to ask for this to be among the first sanctions lifted. In general, the "only one account" should be the last sanction lifted, such that the community can clearly scrutinize all legal edits from the one editor in order to assess the relaxed sanctions' effectiveness. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  5.  Roger Davies talk 06:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Courcelles - I'd be willing to relax the restriction if there was a good reason, but otherwise, prefer to keep it in place for now. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  8. Since Lyncs isn't really pressing for this restriction to be lifted at this time (see his response to my question), I don't think this step is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Abstain
Comments by arbitrators
  • Just speaking personally, for good cause, I'd be willing to modify the restriction, say if Lyrics wanted to run a bot. But not lift it. Courcelles 15:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point. Yes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To vacate interaction ban (Lyncs)

Proposed:

The indefinite ban of Lyncs (talk · contribs) from interacting with Cirt (talk · contribs)—that was set down (as "Interaction ban Cirt") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated. We expect Lyncs to abide by his voluntary agreement to recuse from interaction with Cirt except where necessary to conduct legitimate dispute-resolution, discussion, and collaboration, and remind him that any disruptive interaction with Cirt will be grounds for the interaction ban to be restored and for further sanctions to be levied. Unnecessary (and especially harassing) interaction with Cirt may also be sufficient grounds for him to be blocked by any administrator for disruptive editing, as a standard administrative action.
Support
  1. Proposed, per Lyncs' request (and Bishonen's reminder, above). I missed that Lyncs has asked for the interaction ban to be vacated too. In supporting this motion, my own thinking is that I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the same problems that existed at the time of the Scientology case will exist today (if the interaction ban is removed), but of course I do expect Lyncs to understand that, if this motion carries and we end up with more of the same mistreatment of Cirt, he will be appropriately sanctioned by further amendments. AGK [•] 14:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'd like to see a period of positive edits and behaviour - a proper bedding in, before lifting this restriction. As Cirt is currently restricted from the topic area this gives Lyncs a breathing space to re-establish himself. I'd be happy to revisit this request after 3 months, or whenever there is a sufficient evidence of calm interaction and consensus building with other users. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. At the moment, I'd prefer to just remove the topic ban, and see how things progress from there. If after a few months of removing the topic ban, all is well, we could revisit this issue. PhilKnight (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. Per Phil. Courcelles 01:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. Also prefer to give Lyncs the time to re-establish himself/herself as an editor. No prejudice to a future appeal in a few months of effective editing and interaction with other editors. Risker (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  5. Per Phil. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  6. Per SilkTork, PhilKnight, and Risker. And like them, I'd be willing to revisit this in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  7. Per Phil Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Abstain
Comments by arbitrators


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Muhammad images (Anthonyhcole) (June 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Case link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images

Initiated by Anthonyhcole (talk) at 06:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Anthonyhcole

Since the closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images, where I was heavily involved as a party and not mentioned or sanctioned in the conclusions, and the subsequent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images I've edited Muhammad a few times:

[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

and been engaged in significant constructive discussion on the talk page:

  1. Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Minor_change_in_expression
  2. Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Copy_and_paste
  3. Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Muhammad_created_Islam.3B_their_god.2C_Allah

A couple of weeks ago I attempted to begin a discussion about image curation on the sub-page Talk:Muhammad/images#Query but dropped it when no one took it up. I was however advised by seven editors that I may not discuss that topic. This was not my reading of the arbitration conclusion.

A couple of days ago at Talk:Muhammad#Edit_request_on_15_June_2012 a new editor requested that pictures of Muhammad be removed from the article. Four editors responded:

  • Mdann52: Please address your issues at Talk:Muhammad/Images
  • Veritycheck: I'm sorry, unfortunately the Wikipedia community has decided that there is a consensus to keep pictures of Muhammad in the article. Apologies on my behalf and the other editors here who disagreed with the decision.
  • Tarc: Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED is the applicable policy here. Thank you for your concern.
  • Anthonyhcole: That policy, WP:NOTCENSORED, explains why Wikipedia doesn't have to remove those images, Huzaifah but I can't point you to a policy that says we have to include them, because there is no such policy. It is our free choice to include them or not in the article. We have a right to but no obligation. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's official stance toward you is that we don't care that it offends you. Even though most of the figurative depictions of the prophet (pbuh) in this article add nothing to the reader's understanding of his life, we have decided to include them, because we like to. No other valid reason. Despite the vast majority of us knowing that you'll be disaffected by them, and knowing that we can't tell you one thing that they add to the reader's understanding of the life of the prophet (pbuh), we want to, so we do, and we don't care that you're offended. That is, we don't care enough to remove these totally gratuitous images. On behalf of Wikipedia, I'd like to say sorry, but I can't because we're (as a community) not.

Tarc disagreed with my clarification of the situation for the new editor and threatened me with arbitration enforcement if I didn't strike or remove it at User_talk:Anthonyhcole#possible_AE_filing.

Could the committee please clarify for me whether there is a ban in place on discussing the curation of figurative depictions of Muhammad? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading all of this, particularly Qwyrxian's comment, I'm persuaded that you may be addressing a different question, and that is down to my vagueness. I'm hoping to discuss on Talk:Muhammad/images whether, in principle, some of the figurative depictions of Muhammad could be replaced by images that are as attractive and relevant, but don't depict Muhammad. You've emphasised that the RfC settled "principles". I'm wondering if one of the settled principles might actually prevent me from doing that. That may be the case. It's just not clear to me.
As for Mathsci's assertions, he seems to have misunderstood the situation and I've addressed that at Talk:Muhammad/images#Image_removal, where it belongs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I have
  • solicited Jimbo's opinion on the outcome, to which he did not respond
  • attempted to initiate a conversation about the curation of images at Talk:Muhammad/images, seeking advice about the appropriateness of that at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Advice? during that discussion, and now here, and
  • I responded to a request for the removal of images.
Don't tell me I can't solicit Jimbo's opinion on this or any other issue related to this project. If the thrust of the discussion I initiated at Talk:Muhammad/images#Query is inappropriate, please do tell me. I can't trust the opinion of any of the editors opining here or there because most are bitterly opposed to my view. Most of them have been attacking me and telling me to shut up since I appeared on that page. (Not just me, mind you, anybody who disagrees with the view they share.) That is why I am here. Asking for your clarification. Is the thrust of Talk:Muhammad/images#Query in breach of the arbitration conclusion, and can you make it clearer to me what is and is not an appropriate topic of discussion on that talk page?
I take deep offense at the implication that I inserted the image of Mahatma Gandhi for any reason but to improve the article. Would those making that claim please withdraw it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Singularity. I can't trust you because I don't have a clue who you are. Have we ever edited the same page before this? I had you, and not only you, in mind when I used "most" rather than "all" in "...most are bitterly opposed to my view. Most of them have been attacking me..." Please don't be offended. I assume the arbitrators will be able to clarify this for me. I can't assume that about you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mathsci, you accuse me of disrupting to make a point, a very serious charge, and cite (a) me removing an image of Muhammad from the article that had been added shortly beforehand without discussion, the removal of which everybody on the talk page has agreed was appropriate, and (b) my insertion of an image of Mahatma Gandhi to illustrate a large quote from Gandhi, which most editors agree was reasonable (though most disagree with the choice). Would you please withdraw the disruption assertion? This kind of mud sticks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators. Mathsci is deliberately misleading you here. A few days ago I saw a figurative depiction of Muhammad going into the article without discussion, and accidentally removed the wrong image, which I restored 3 minutes later when I removed the correct image. Nomoskedasticity noticed the image removal today and, thinking I was being a dick deleting a long-standing image, restored it. After a little confusion, this was sorted out on the talk page at Talk:Muhammad/images#Image_removal and the thread was closed at 10:54. At 11:12 Mathsci said here "(Anthony's) edits currently give the appearance of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Without seeking prior consensus, he removed this image of Muhammad [11] from the Islamic depictions section; he then attempted to remove another image [12] while accidentally (?) restoring the first removal." That is, 18 minutes after the talk page discussion closed, and we're all agreed I did the right thing in deleting the image but my edit summaries should have been clearer, and Nomo could have been more careful, and I've explained to everyone that the first image deletion was a mistake quickly corrected (obviously so, if you just look at the page history) Mathsci, seeing that on the surfaace my behaviour there could appear to be disruptive, knowing that it wasn't, but had the appearance of disruption, especially with his false and deceitful description, presented it to you as evidence for my disruptive behaviour. You're being conned.

This has nothing to do with this page, really. But am I meant to just let this stuff sit here? I'd actually appreciate it if an arb or clerk would delete all of the ad hominem, just leaving the question, what is and is not appropriate for discussion on Talk:Muhammad/images, but I guess that's not going to happen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the protocols of this page but, if we're done, thank you. I'll try to avoid any behaviours that can reasonably be interpreted by an intelligent informed observer as disruptive. Since no one has taken up my offer to discuss the replacement of figurative depictions of Muhammad with equally valuable other types of image, the question at the heart of this thread is moot.

Just an observation, for what it's worth. When I entered this debate, the very notion that we, Wikipedia, should take account of the offense we may cause our readers was a taboo topic. The fundamentalist WP:NOTCENSORED cult, was strident and domineering, and was deferred to by the majority who didn't challenge their orthodoxy. The Foundation resolution on controversial images gave moral strength to now-banned Ludwigs2, now-retired Hans Adler, myself and others to stand up to the essential foolishness of the doctrine "we don't care about offense." Over that six months or so, I've seen more and more highly respected editors questioning the absolute supremacy of our right to offend.

Obviously, this autistic/psychopathic orientation toward our readers (and subjects, and often each other) is a long way from being resolved, but a change is afoot. I urge you to weigh our commitment to respect for our readers, subjects and peers against our commitment to openness in all of your dealings here.

When you banned Ludwigs2 and chastised Hans Adler, leading to his departure from the project, I felt betrayed and demoralised; so much so that I essentially abandoned the RfC on Muhammad images - both the discussion around its design and the RfC itself. I now believe I let the project down there. There should have been someone with the necessary corporate memory from my side of the debate involved there, but I just couldn't bring myself to it. It breaks my heart now to look over that RfC at the arrant shallow nonsense its findings were founded on. I have been wagging the tail of that debate a bit, and I apologise for that.

The blind right to offend has won in this case, and it's won by the very tactics I laid out for you above in Mathsci's lies about my motivations. Those tactics are all over Talk:Muhammad/images and the Arbitration evidence and workshop talk pages. They work because their authors fill such pages with such walls of text that no volunteer can reasonably be expected to grasp any more than a sense from them, a sense not justified by close scrutiny.

The only way around that tactic, that I can see, is fierce curation of all arbitration and admin pages for relevance and civility. This page is a disgrace in that respect. I do appreciate the work you all do, and suggest this not as a criticism but as a way to maximise the effectiveness of your precious time here. Efforts are being made at the Fae case, and I applaud that. Please don't be discouraged by criticisms, practice makes perfect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken. I do not dispute the legitimacy of the committee's conclusions or the findings of the RfC triumvirate. In fact I am on record twice congratulating the latter on the excellent job they made of an extremely taxing task, and nothing I've said here indicates that I intend to continue arguing my position ad nauseam. As far as bald faced kicks in the groin to the community go, I'll continue to speak my mind on the project's dysfunctional stance towards offensive behaviour.

@PhilKnight. Autism is a disorder that features among other traits diminished ability to appreciate offensive behaviour. Autists frequently say the most appalling things and fail to recognise, at least in the usual immediate feeling way that normal people do, the offense, or the magnitude of the offense they cause. This is considered by most people to be a seriously socially disabling impairment. Psychopaths can usually recognise when they're offending others but, lacking empathy, don't care. This project, at least until recently proudly chanted the mantra, "we don't care if we offend our readers." I believe WP:NOTCENSORED still essentially says that. (I can't bear to read that document again.) That is, a large number of vocal Wikimedians proudly assume a stance toward our readers and subjects that socially functional people consider to be both detrimental to social integration and anti-social.

I've discussed this elsewhere, so one or two of your colleagues will have known what I was alluding to with "autistic/psychopathic." It's not a throw-away slur; it's a deeply- and long-considered critique of this project. I apologise for not taking the trouble to elaborate earlier. That was thoughtless of me. But, that said, everyone is entitled to their view and if you believe I pose a threat to the project I invite you to act according to your best lights. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarc knows that I believe you don't have to be mentally ill to go along with this crazy perspective, you just need to be persuaded it's sensible. Despite this, below he says that I dismiss those who support the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED as a bunch of feeble-minded autistics. He's doing what Mathsci did, taking something a bit complicated, that superficially looks bad for me and, knowing that the truth differs from the superficial appearance, nevertheless purveys the superficial version because it looks right on a superficial reading, and realistically, very few readers are going to grasp the more subtle explanation.

I am getting so tired of this. I came here for help in understanding my obligations with regard to Talk:Muhammad/images. Feel free to initiate whatever action you believe is appropriate but do it in an appropriate forum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork, you assert that I am disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I refute that. What do you base that on? I have asked Jimbo's opinion of the outcome of the Muhammad images business, tried to initiate a discussion on the curation of images at Talk:Muhammad/images, with no takers, so I dropped it, explained the situation wrt figurative depictions of Muhammad to a new editor, come here asking for guidance regarding the implications of the arbitration result for the discussion of image curation at Talk:Muhammad/images, and, while here, have recommended that you exert some discipline over the pages you control. If I've missed something, please tell me.

Is it disruptive to do those things? If so, how?

You assert that I am making comments that are intended to stir up discontent. I'm not doing that. Obviously some of what I say displeases some editors but that's an unintended byproduct. The intention of each of the abovementioned actions is as stated.You offend me by your assumption of bad faith there.

You say, "when a decision is made that we disagree with, we accept it and move on". I have come here to find out what that means. Does that mean that we're not permitted to discuss the curation of figurative depictions of Muhammad at Talk:Muhammad/images? If I read them correctly, at least one of your colleagues seems to think we are permitted. If that is so, what have I done wrong, exactly? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@AGK and NewYorkBrad, thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Article talk pages are to be used for discussion on how to edit/improve the article. Anthony wants to discuss Muhammad images without any intention to improve the article. This becomes clear in this section, in particular when he says So, just to be clear, I won't be proposing that an edit actually be made to the article". It is also clear in the sardonic and tendentious way he addresses other editors. Anthony's desire to discuss Muhammad images should be satisfied at some other location -- his own talk page, perhaps. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It works out that Anthony has edited the article, removing an image of Muhammad, with no attempt at gaining consensus first. Surely this is contrary to the outcome of the RfC. It's becoming clear that Anthony's participation at Muhammad is not constructive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • And now it has emerged that Anthony was reverting addition of an image that was done without discussion -- though without providing any indication that this is what he was doing. So my comment immediately above can be ignored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

I have Muhammad on my watchlist and edited it and its talk page just prior to the edit from an account (not yet auto-confirmed) requesting the removal of all images. Requests (or demands) like that occur periodically. Anthonyhcole's reply to that request is posted above. It reflects his personal point of view and not the consensus summarised by the three administrators who closed the RfC set up as a result of the Muhammad images case. As indicated by Future Perfect at Sunrise, one of the administrators involved at WP:AE, if Anthonyhcole intends to reply similarly to future requests of that kind on what he terms "curation of images", he should probably restrict such statements to user talk pages.[13] My understanding is that the results of that RfC were intended to be considered as binding and not to be the subject of future discussion. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Looking further at Anthonyhcole's edits, contrary to his self-presentation here, his edits currently give the appearance of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Without seeking prior consensus, he removed this image of Muhammad [14] from the Islamic depictions section; he then attempted to remove another image [15] while accidentally (?) restoring the first removal. Both edit summaries state, "Not relevant to this section, Islamic depictions of Muhammad." As Anthonyhcole clarified much later, he was removing an image added shortly beforehand by Dzlinker to the top of a different (and relevant) section; per policy, the image could have been removed on sight because no prior discussion had occurred. That is not what Anthonyhcole indicated in his edit summaries. The inclusion of an image of Mahatma Ghandi shortly afterwards seemed undue and an example of WP:POINT.[16] Aside from the discussions on images already mentioned, the reversion of images (without a correct edit summary, such as "rv per Muhammad image policy - see Talk:Muhammad/Images") and the insertion of an image of Ghandi shortly afterwards is pushing the boundaries. Anthonyhcole edited in a way that was unclear and confusing, because of the edit summaries and lack of discussion. That made it quite difficult to tell why he was making those edits. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please could Anthonyhcole not edit in the arbitrator section? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • From his recent editing history, it would appear that Anthonyhcole is indeed intent on making a WP:POINT. If he's going to take offence at that being pointed out, I'm not sure that very much can be done. An observation like that is not a personal attack but a comment on his editing patterns. My own advice to him is to remember what the drafting arbitrator AGK suggested during the arbcom case (if I remember correctly): editors with strong personal feelings who have become too deeply invested in the discussions are best advised to stay away from the article or discussions of the issues on wikipedia. Too much time is being wasted at present on discussions that should have been closed long ago. On the article itself, there have been far more problematic edits than those connected with images. They require immediate attention. Rehashing matters that have already been resolved is a waste of volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Anthonycole has suggested and continues to suggest that those who do not agree with his point of view are autistic or psychopathic. Statements of that kind are wholly unacceptable and contrary to all wikipedia policies. I hope that he is just a tiny bit aware of the problems he is creating for himself by making statements of that kind and how they might affect his future editing privileges. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement Qwyrxian

@RogerDavies: Anthonycole is not doing what you are talking about. He's talking about raising, once again, the general issue of whether any images that depict the body/form of Muhammad are educational in value. He wants to reargue the RfC. He explicitly stated that he is not proposing discussion of specific images, but rather talking in general. This is not collegial editing. Note that I even agree with much, though not all, of Anthonycole's position...but the RfC results were clear, and I accept that. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

I was on the verge of filing an Arb Enforcement over this junk, but was advised that Anthony's actions may not be quite to the level of the discretionary sanctions. IMO they are verging on the vexatious and the pointy, particularly the response to that edit request. Pardon my French, but that response was one big fuck-you to the (sizable) majority at the RfC that found the article as it exists now conforms with the principles of the Wikipedia project.

As for "image curation", this line from Anthony's comment above

"I'm hoping to discuss on Talk:Muhammad/images whether, in principle, some of the figurative depictions of Muhammad could be replaced by images that are as attractive and relevant, but don't depict Muhammad."

says it all. How on earth can anyone think that they can reopen the same freakin argument that the RfC decided? The depictions of Muhammad presently in the article are set in stone for the forseeable future. I believe that is the interpretation that most have taken away from the RfC once it closed.

Apologies to Roger, but IMO there is no such thing as "routine replacement or updating of images" on this particular article. This is a landmine every time someone tries and it should just be left alone for a good while. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

PS - Well let me clarify that; "routine replacement or updating of images" is possible if the subject matter is 100% not Muhammad-related. Right now there is a discussion regarding the addition of a picture of Gandhi. That sort of discussion or "curation" or whatever I think is fine, RfC-wise. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@note: IMO Anthonycole is insulting those who support the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED, e.g. the "diminished ability to appreciate offensive behaviour" line. Time and time again it has been explained that disagreeing with Anthony on how to deal with offensiveness is not the same as lacking the ability to recognize it. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I think it's abundantly clear that Anthonyhcole's intent is to continue to discuss this until he achieves a result he agrees with. That kind of thinking is precisely why the case went to Arbcom and ultimately to an RFC. His perspective failed to achieve consensus, as did my diametrically opposed view. That doesn't matter. It's time for us all to be quiet now. At the very least, a "clarification" to Anthony that it's time to be quiet and time to stop changing the images is in order. If clarification isn't sufficient, a formal topic ban would be the next step.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

Echoing Tarc and Kww. Related to the quote of Anthony's that Tarc posted above, Anthony now seems intent on discussing the merits of adding an image of Mahatma Gandhi to this article, simply because a Gandhi quote is contained. Obvious reason is obvious: The more irrelevant or tangental (and that is charitable int his case) images he stuffs onto an article about Muhammad, the fewer relevant images directly related to the article subject can be placed. He also chose to complain at Jimbo's talk page about how the RfC went against his position in a bid to start yet another an argument over the exact same things that were consistently rejected over the course of months of discussion, multiple RFCs and the previous arbitration case. It becomes obvious that Anthony will not voluntarily drop the stick, and that he will continue to waste everyone's time until he either gets his way or is forced out of the topic area. Resolute 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Singularity42

I guess I was notified about this Request for Clarification because of this edit I made, where I (correctly, IMO) quoted WP:TALKEDABOUTIT to indicate that it may be considered disruptive to bring up a subject again so soon after consensus was determined. Generally, though, I haven't participated too much on the discussion on Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images, although both are on my watchlist.

That being said, from watching those pages I have made a few observations. Specifically, in relation to this Request for Clarification, I have observed the following recent behaviour from Anthonyhcole on the related talk pages:

  1. Initiate a somewhat heated discussion about alternatives to showing images depecting Muhammad very shortly after the RFC closed (see Talk:Muhammad/images#Query).
  2. Respond to new editors' requests to remove images depecting Muhammad by "speaking on behalf" of the consensus that did not agree with him and assigning motives and intentions that are not necessarily true.

In relation to the first issue, I believe WP:TALKEDABOUTIT is the applicable policy. The community had a very heated debate at the RFC, with many different proposals introduced and discussed. Ultimately, a consensus was determined on May 28th. Less than one week later, and Anthonyhcole was trying to debate the issue again. He says that he was just having a conversation, and other editors are free to ignore him, but that makes no sense. The image talk page is to discuss how to improve the Muhammad article, specifically in relation to the images. It is not a forum or a place to have non-specific conversations. If Anthonyhcole is not interested in re-determining the consensus, than why initiate the conversation? If he is trying to re-determine the consensus, than I think some time should be waited until after the RFC (i.e. not a few days).

In relation to the second issue, I have no problem with Anthonyhcole (or any editor for that matter) telling a new editor that they sympathize with the new editor's request to remove the images, but that the consensus is to keep them. Where I and other editors take issue is when Anthonyhcole posts a comment like this (which Anthonyhcole quoted in his statement at the top). What ends up happenening is that Anthonyhcole claims to speak on behalf of a consensus he does not agree with and then assigns that consensus with untrue motives and intentions:

  • He claims on behalf of the community that Wikipedia does not care that the images insults the new editor. In fact, many of the editors who favour the current consensus do care, but found that it did not outweigh other principles, policies, and concerns.
  • He claims on behalf of the community that the community added the images not because it helps the reader understand the subject's life, but because we just like how they look. I don't think I have to say that that was the exact opposite conclusion the closers gave in the RFC.
  • He claims on behalf of the community that the majority of us know the new editor will be offended, knows that the images don't help the reader understand anything about Muhammad, and that we've just added the images because we want to. Again, this is completely contrary the what the consensus was at the RFC.
  • He wants to apologize on behalf of the community, but cannnot because the community is not sorry. Well, then stop trying to talk on behalf of the community.

When called out on these types of comments, Anthonyhcole's repeated claim is that his is just having a conversation, and we don't have to participate if we don't want to. Its this type of passive-aggresive comments that are keeping all of the other editors frustrated. Singularity42 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Anthonyhclole:

  1. You say the opinions of the editors here cannot be trusted because they bitterly oppose your view. Can you please show me an edit where I have bitterly opposed your view? I believe the reason you included me in this Request for Clarification was my one edit were I pointed out WP:CCC.
  2. You say most of the editors have been attacking you. Have I attacked you at all, other than (for the first time) commenting on your behaviour in my above statement? Singularity42 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Chowbok

Wow, Anthonyhcole really wants to get topic-banned. I hope somebody obliges him soon.—Chowbok ☠ 17:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

This statment by Anthonyhcole, above, is significant:

When you banned Ludwigs2 and chastised Hans Adler, leading to his departure from the project, I felt betrayed and demoralised; so much so that I essentially abandoned the RfC on Muhammad images - both the discussion around its design and the RfC itself. I now believe I let the project down there. There should have been someone with the necessary corporate memory from my side of the debate involved there, but I just couldn't bring myself to it. It breaks my heart now to look over that RfC at the arrant shallow nonsense its findings were founded on. I have been wagging the tail of that debate a bit, and I apologise for that.

In this statement the committee can see that it is Anthonyhcole's position that the results of the RfC are not legitimate -- both because he did not participate, and because it did not return the outcome he desired -- and that he intends to re-litigate it ad nauseum until he gets the results he wants. This kind of bald-faced kick-in-the-groin to the community cannot stand, and should not be allowed to go un-sanctioned, lest this issue fester forever. Many people disagreed with the results of the RfC, to one extent or another, but are willing to compromise and accept the results for the sake of collegiality and community harmony. One person's intransigence cannot be allowed to continue to disrupt the peace, when so many others have suppressed their own disagreements in the face of a community-wide decision. (There can be no legitimate argument that this particular RfC did not represent the entire diversity of community opinions.)

The committee needs to take heed of WP:BURO and deal with this case as if were an instance of an AE filing. I know of no reason why the committee, administrators all, cannot enforce their own rulings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • The question raised in this clarification request was relatively simple to begin with, and appears to have been answered in depth by several arbitrators. Therefore, this request can probably be archived in a day or two by any available clerk (barring substantial submissions by more of my colleagues). Thanks, AGK [•] 22:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: the community was invited to establish principles concerning the nature and placement of images of Muhammad. Additionally, discretionary sanctions were authorised to curb fresh outbreaks of disruption. Neither of these restrict, nor are intended to restrict, collegiale discussion about the routine replacement or updating of images. Does this answer your question? Or do you have something more specific in mind?  Roger Davies talk 07:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Roger is essentially correct, however if Anthonyhcole continues in this manner, the next stage should be filing a report at WP:AE, which would likely result in a topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Anthonyhcole's comment about the 'autistic/psychopathic orientation' is completely unacceptable, and I'm beginning to think that a lengthy topic ban is required. PhilKnight (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Could the committee please clarify for me whether there is a ban in place on discussing the curation of figurative depictions of Muhammad?": No such ban exists. However, if your behaviour becomes disruptive you may be appropriately sanctioned in a request for enforcement. To the other commentators, this extended dialogue is irrelevant to the question of whether Anthonyhcole is currently subject to restriction, and any concern about his behaviour should be directed to the enforcement noticeboard. In any enforcement proceedings, extensive discussion about AHCole's conduct should be avoided. Enforcing arbitration decisions on contentious articles is quite difficult enough without a crowd of editors shouting "Off with his head!". AGK [•] 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Per PhilKnight, a topic ban for Anthonyhcole may be appropriate. In addition to what's mentioned above, I find "...the reader's understanding of the life of the prophet (pbuh)" inappropriate. Muhammad is not "the prophet" to Wikipedia, nor are honorifics appropriate per WP:PBUH, and the notion that Anthonyhcole brought his own conduct up himself would tend to indicate he sees nothing wrong with carrying on in such a manner on a talk page. While I applaud the religious diversity Wikipedia supports, our purpose is to write an NPOV encyclopedia, and editors who argue strenuously with the community on the basis of their own personal convictions can readily cross the line into disruptive editing--not for the use of honorifics, but for the tenacity which they strive to make Wikipedia into their own preferred image. The same could be said of any religious fundamentalist so set on one worldview that he or she strives to avoid an NPOV presentation of a topic touched on by his or her beliefs, of course. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • To respond to my colleagues' points below, I do believe that any POV language, even that with benign inherent religious assumptions, is inappropriate for use in a mixed audience like Wikipedia, and that the use of such language is not in keeping with our expectations of collegiality. Asking "How can we best portray Our Lord?" on Talk:Jesus would be equally inappropriate from a Christian. We should tolerate such language from new editors, provided it is not excessively inflammatory, while educating them about the expectations of civil discourse. But then, I believe that use of CE/BCE language is more appropriate than either BC/AD or AH dating for an NPOV encyclopedia, a view which has not been endorsed wholeheartedly by the community, per WP:ERA. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no ban on appropriate discussion, but there has long been a ban on people disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, that is either in making comments that are intended to stir up discontent, or in opening up formal procedures just to make a point. At some point each one of us on Wikipedia has disagreed with a decision made; however, the nature of the project is that it operates by consensus - it has to operate by consensus otherwise we would be forever consumed by dispute; so when a decision is made that we disagree with, we accept it and move on. I suggest you either accept the consensus or edit away from that topic if it upsets you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that Anthonyhcole has received guidance from the comments above, although perhaps not the specific advice he was hoping for. To recapitulate, the community has decided that some images will remain present on Muhammad, and that consensus should be respected for the foreseeable future. Disagreement with the consensus may be expressed as appropriate, but in a non-disruptive and non-tendentious manner. I hope Anthonyhcole will now take this message to heart, so that enforcement action, as sought by some of the commenters and suggested by some of my colleagues, will not be necessary. On a separate point, responding to Jclemens, a believer's use of honorifics or the term "prophet" in referring to Muhammad on talkpages does not by itself, in my view, constitute a problem. As this Committee decided in a 2006 case, "Traditional Muslim usages such as "Salam, brother" or (PBUH) may be used on talk pages at the discretion of the user; however, care should be taken to not create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Nothing really more to be said, but chiming in to agree with my colleagues above, and with Newyorkbrad that collegiate talk page discussion does not require the removal or deliberate avoidance of honorifics. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Sathya Sai Baba 2 (July 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Andries Andries (talk) at 21:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: No users except me.

Request to re-edit Sathya Sai Baba movement. I lost to a great extent interest in the subject and have little time. But I still have a lot of good sources on the subject on the shelf. I bought them because they were recommended in arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba 1. What a waste when they are on my book shelf and only very few people have access to the contents. The article was never controversial, unlike Sathya Sai Baba. But after I stopped editing the Sathya Sai Central Trust, an organization that is part of the movement, has received much criticism. I was the only substantial contributor. I promise that I will revert max. once per month. I will not get involved in lengthy discussions or dispute resolution, because I do not have time. Andries (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 

Andries (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to see the diffs of how you've contributed positively to the talk pages related to these articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry no time. Andries (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, my suggestion would be that there's no evidence indicating you've resolved the issues that lead to this restriction; and, as such, the restriction should remain in place. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Please take into account that the Arbcom could not find bad diffs in the case Sathya Sai Baba2 by me on the article Sathya Sai Baba, let alone in the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. It was more about COI because I was an ex-member, but the emotional involvement waned away in the course of time.Andries (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the reliability background of the dispute, and your suggestion that you want to use sources you personally have available, I am looking for evidence of your current editing behaviour in this area. I think this is reasonable to request, given that you have had access to the talk pages of the articles in this area for some time. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is a reasonable request. Will do so when I have time. Andries (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Civility enforcement (July 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Nobody Ent at 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Case affected
Civility enforcement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 4
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[17]

Information about amendment request

Statement by Nobody Ent

Since being topic banned from the Rfa talk page MF has periodically used the comments sections to aggressively engage other commenters; the most current example has resulted in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Malleus_Fatuorum; A civil request to correct an edit of another editors signature [18] escalated unnecessarily [19]. Additional examples of comments not related to the candidate [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]Nobody Ent 8:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom previously found ...his comments are derisive and belittling. The volume and consistency of his participation has affected the quality of discourse on the page.

The signature incident and reaction following were ridiculous. Fram should have simply fixed the signature glitch when they saw it, and Malleus should have looked at the diff provided and fixed it when it was pointed out. The resultant ANI thread turned out to be vehement, emotional, and unproductive. This suggests the situation described by Risker last December -- simply too divisive to continue as is -- remains essentially unchanged.

As a remedy to its prior finding, the committee topic banned Malleus from WT:RFA while explicitly " explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's."

Had the signature glitch occurred in the context of reasonable discussion, it most likely would have been dealt with appropriately. In fact, it occurred in the context of not of discussion of the merits of Ryan Vesey as a potential administrator, but rather following a demeaning statement regarding another editor Actually what's clear is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought. To reduce the likelihood of future disruption, I'm suggesting the committee logically extend its current restriction of Malleus from the WT:RFA space to the WP:RFA space; specifically, that he limit he comments to the merits of the candidate rather than characterizations of the other participants in the discussion. Such characterizations:

  • have no bearing on appropriateness of granting the candidate the sysop bit
  • add to the verbiage a closing bureaucrat must evaluate while adding no value
  • have a moderate probability of initiating an off-topic, divisive side discussions.

I further suggest wording to the effect of Unnecessary comments in RFA discussions belittling Malleus Fatuorum may be removed by any administrator to minimize the probability of ongoing baiting.

All this is excessive nannyism and should not be necessary but evidence suggests that something is. Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. is supposed to be a core Wikipedia policy. Nobody Ent 10:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sphilbrick

The discussion of the WP:FRINGE guideline was germane to a question asked of the candidate. While ascertaining whether the questioner (as opposed to the candidate) fully understood the policy is a slight veer off-topic, it is far less off-topic than discussions in almost every other RfA. Plus it was interesting. A kerfuffle arose which had nothing to do with whether MF was discussing the candidate or someone else. If the Committee wants to rule that no one can ever engage in off-topic discussions, I have a tide I'd like them to order rolled back. If the committee entertains the notion that a specific editor should have the unique prohibition of staying narrowly on-topic, I think we need a far better argument than noting that a technical glitch turned into some harsh words elsewhere.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Worm That Turned

I was one of the editors who offered evidence for this sanction in the first place. Since it has been enacted, I have found that it is not fit for purpose. Specifically, it can be used to silence Malleus Fatuorum by moving discussions on a vote to the talk page - so long discussions sometimes remain on the RfA. The focus should be at WT:RfA specifically, which is where (in my opinion) the disruption occurred, not the subpages. I should also note that no uninvolved administrator has yet topic banned Malleus from a specific RfA (to the best of my knowledge). I would propose shortening the remedy to

Malleus Fatuorum is indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship.

I do not see the rest of the remedy as useful. WormTT(talk) 15:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed at what this has turned into since I made my initial comment. Whilst I still stand by my comments, I do not approve of this request turning into what it's turned into. Yet another little drama fest, over nothing, with intense labelling by both sides. I'm seeing the merits of Volunteer Mark's Alpha or Omega options - though I'd suggest that administrators deserve blocks just as much as non-admins in Omega. WormTT(talk) 15:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Br'er Rabbit

As said on ANI, this was a case of Mally being baited by Fram.

  • "I wanted to draw your attention to it and wait for your reaction. It turns out to be quite telling."here
This is conduct incompatible with being an administrator. It erodes the desired respect of the admin corp we would, in theory, desire the general editor population to have. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Equazcion

I wanted to comment on this diff, that User:Br'er Rabbit brought above. I've had to fix a lot of edit conflict messes from other editors, as they generally result in text getting inserted into the header of a page. I've never seen anything end up erroneously within another person's comment. I accept Malleus' eventual explanation that this was indeed a technical error, but I don't think there was reason to assume anything either way when Fram contacted Malleus. My first thought on seeing an edit like Malleus' would have indeed been to see how the editor would explain it when confronted. Fram presented the matter without any accusatory demeanor, but simply asked that the edit be corrected. There was no baiting. Malleus nevertheless chose not to explain anything until the matter was brought to ANI, and instead responded with stonewalling and insults until then. Equazcion (talk) 18:37, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to reply to all the present and inevitable comments that start with "I'm not excusing his behavior, but...": Yes, you are excusing it, in all the ways that matter.
Fram had what I think was a poor choice of words in his second comment, when he said the insertion looked intentional. His first notice to Malleus showed that he wasn't passing judgment, but Malleus' reply pushed Fram in the wrong direction. Indeed, nobody's perfect, but the majority of imperfect interactions don't generally escalate the way they do with Malleus, because his interactions in these cases are far more than imperfect.
The reaction from many is to repeatedly claim that this is just some drama that should be dropped. "I'm not excusing him, he reacted badly, but... [this won't get anywhere] [it's just drama] [everyone's making a big deal about this] [time to move on] [etc]" -- This is indeed excusing him. You're blaming everyone else for calling attention to his repeated pattern of poor behavior, no matter how many times he displays it.
What's worse than the mere words that Malleus produces is the fact that he takes advantage of everyone else's restraint. Most of us don't want discussions to descend into insults, because we've learned that it rarely gets anything accomplished -- not to mention, we consider ourselves bound by the Wikipedia rules that Malleus nevertheless eschews. This gives Malleus extra impunity as he exploits the situation. It's kind of like a superpower -- he can do something everyone else can't or won't do. Malleus will either stop a discussion dead or bring out attacks from others, and both outcomes tend to help him -- he either gets the last word or successfully brings out the other guy's immaturity, making him look bad. Once Malleus starts making comments that have no substance other than calling people "twats", "aresholes", etc, those are the only two options.
There was a Family Guy episode where some high school students were standing around trying to think of something to do. One suggested, "Hey, want to go push the janitor, knowing he can't legally push us back?" Enter Malleus, our very own high school student, who gets to push us around whilst exploiting the fact that we can't push back -- and if we do, all the better for him.
So before we yet again say "I don't excuse him, but [insert comment that excuses him]," let's think. A little more than usual this time. Equazcion (talk) 20:54, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Parrot of Doom: I'll make you a deal: If consensus is that that comment of mine you linked to is indeed on the level of Malleus' behavior, I'll gun for an indefinite block for both Malleus and myself. Equazcion (talk) 21:12, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If mirroring sanctions on another person from the other side should somehow make enacting them on Malleus easier, I hereby volunteer. I'd take a three-month ban, so long as Malleus gets it too. I'll gladly give up three months of my wiki-life to give three months of reprieve to the rest of Wikipedia from Malleus' vitriol. Yeah yeah, content creation, but I actually think maintaining the right environment is more important than retaining one good content creator. The former has the potential to retain more content creators and general positive contributions. Or you can ban us both from all corners of RfA, though admittedly I tend to stay away from there on my own already. Equazcion (talk) 18:54, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

PS. No part of this is a joke. I'd do it. Equazcion (talk) 18:56, 5 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Ched: If it could be said that every time Malleus calls someone a twat it's because someone else prodded him into it, then this has happened enough times that we can say Malleus is far too easily prodded. It takes two to tango. Being prodded, if it has happened (and I'm definitely not saying it has), is not an excuse for the type of behavior Malleus exhibits. I get prodded all the time, as do others, and none of us react that way. We're under the impression that we're expected to control ourselves and not fly off the handle whenever an excuse comes along. Either we're all mistaken and are actually welcome to act like children when someone presents the opportunity, or we're not and Malleus needs a clear and broad edict to shape up or suffer a lasting consequence. Equazcion (talk) 00:02, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky: Calling the other side the "out-to-get-Malleus brigade," in same post where you say you're sick of polarizing name-calling from us such as "fan club," etc, is pretty vexing. And in response to this exchange:

"Somebody pokes the bear with a stick, the bear growls at them, and they go running and crying 'Mommy, the nasty bear growled at me - shoot the bear, Mommy!' -- Boing! said Zebedee"
"Where's that 'vicious dog' comic strip again? Pesky"
I find these dismissive characterizations just as "uncivil" as the "names" you point out. A characterization doesn't have to be in the form of a name in order to have the same exact mocking effect you describe in your statement. Equazcion (talk) 12:18, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Parrot of Doom

@Equazcion: "Most of us don't want discussions to descend into insults, because we've learned that it rarely gets anything accomplished -- not to mention, we consider ourselves bound by the Wikipedia rules that Malleus nevertheless eschews." - it's a shame isn't it, that you can't follow your own sagely advice. Parrot of Doom 21:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1

Malleus either actually needs to understand civility, or he needs further restrictions. As someone who regularly uses bad language (when appropriate) I find it increasingly difficult to understand why Malleus' behaviour hasn't started to improve to a level where we don't have to have an ANI thread about him every five minutes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets also be clear that the diffs recently presented on ANI ([26] [27]) aren't exactly borderline incivility. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@RexxS, even if we assume that Fram could have improved his handling of the situation (which I think is fair) that doesn't excuse the totally over the top rudeness towards User:IRWolfie- - and that rudeness was at a much more serious level that the minor inappropriateness of Fram's comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
@RexxS's reply, I agree with you, and I agree with you that we do an extremely poor job of solving disputes productively.
With regards to our poor handling of disputes in general there does seem to be a tendency in cases (if Arbcom want some examples I'll email them, I'd like to avoid adding to the drama by naming names) like this for the supporters of the individual in question to try and pretend that there is no issue at all that is worthy discussion.
That makes it extremely difficult for anyone to agree any sanctions for popular users beyond an indefinite block, as even though they probably only make up 20% of the community, given (obviously) everyone else isn't in lockstep about appropriate sanctions it is difficult to propose anything serious and gain a consensus.
Some additional nuance and subtlety from those people would be extremely helpful - it is the sort of thing we expect already with regards to WP:NPOV too and that approach is much more likely to actually avoid the indefinite block that as fans of Malleus' work they clearly want to avoid.
In this case some level of private mentoring from someone Malleus respects to tell him to drop it, and/or a one month block to see if Malleus really does value contributing to the project and/or a ban from RFA might well work to allow Malleus to continue to be highly productive in other areas while ignoring those parts of the project where he has the most problems.
Lets not pretend that unless there is a substantial change in behaviour that unfortunately Malleus will eventually get an indefinite ban from the project. It might not be this month, or even this year, but it will happen as it has to others in the past. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

This was all precipitated by Malleus's argument with IRWolfie, specifically this response which not only suggested that IRWolfie should re-read the Earth article, but also managed to insert "In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth" in the middle of IRWolfie's sig in the previous comment. Now nobody is going to convince anybody that that is anything other than a glitch. In fact, reading on, Malleus clearly didn't even realise it had happened. It just isn't the sort of thing Malleus does. At that point I have no idea why on earth common sense didn't prevail and somebody simply didn't remove the sentence from the middle of IRWolfie's sig.

Even if we allow that Malleus needed to know it had happened, surely the way to approach it would be to ask him on his talk page why – or if he knew that – he had inserted a sentence in the middle of IRWolfie's sig? Once somebody goes to his page and takes this approach, with an assumption of the editing being "intentional", we know that common sense has been ditched again, and this is a trawling expedition expecting Malleus to respond sharply. Congratulations, he did. Why does anybody waste their time on moah dramah like this? Sometimes I despair for this project. --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1
Yes, Malleus was rude. I wasn't trying to excuse anything. But I was saddened by seeing the escalation from retort to confrontation to ANI to RfAr Amendment.
[on reflection] Why does the community act like a huge Petri dish and grow disputes like cultures, when we could all damp down the growth like penicillin instead? Step away; forget about the slight; buy somebody a beer - Stella Artois for Malleus. We could really do so much better. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Just as an outside view: It's because everyone takes their work here as a personal goal or achievement. Having that questioned tends to bring out the territorial animal in all of us. Combined with the semi-anonymous nature of editing, people tend to let that out more often than they would offline. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 06:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

Here is the sequence of events for the current incident: I am an FTN regular and so I wished to determine how familiar with fringe guidelines the candidate was (I like to consider I am relatively familiar with them as I look at them and the related WP:NPOV often). The candidate answered the question, (whilst noting that he was not very familiar with them) and I was not entirely satisfied with the answer and I provided my reasoning whilst voting neutral. A simple two comment discussion between me and malleus about whether his answer was right or wrong resulted in this comment out of the blue: [28]. When I pointed out the example I gave was is in WP:UNDUE I got this hostile reply: [29]. This reply also changed my signature, presumably by accident and I fixed my signature here [30], and then went to his talk page to leave a comment on being WP:UNCIVIL, I noticed a thread related to my sig and commented there instead noting I had fixed it User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Editing_someone_else.27s_comment. After noting his incivility, I had this directed at me: "Just remind me, why should I give a fuck about what you think about anything?" directed at me so I posted to ANI (the notification of which resulted in [31]). As I noted at ANI, changing my sig by accident isn't the issue here, it's the insults etc [32].

To my knowledge I have not interacted with this editor before this incident: [33]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee. It is not the same as poking a bear, At a normal discussion about policy & guidelines at Requests for adminship (related to an answer given by the nominee), Malleus disagreed with my interpretation, which then resulted in this [34] and this [35], with no provocation. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

@Rexxs: "Why does the community act like a huge Petri dish and grow disputes like cultures" - Because when faced with entrenched viewpoints, the community is left paralyzed, and disputes go unresolved as a result. There is no other path left but escalation. And that, alas, is the problem we have with Malleus. I won't say whether today is that day, but Arbcom is ultimately going to have to make a choice between two significantly opposed camps. The first is that Malleus' editing contributions are enough to justify overlooking his behavioural problems. The second is that his behavioural problems represent a net negative to the project that outweighs his positive editing. We can quantify Malleus' productivity as an editor, but the damage he does through his behaviour is very subjective. That is why the community can't resolve the problem he represents, and that is why it will fall to Arbcom. I would suggest that the fact that more than one editor in the ANI thread has brought up the argument that "blocking is ineffective, so why bother?" is a good indication that the damage his attitude does has surpassed the good his editing does. No editor is irreplaceable, and it is well past time for Malleus' immunity to be ended. He needs to be told to either adjust his behaviour to match expectations, or he needs to be told to leave. Resolute 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

I've seen MF being highly uncivil for years. I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints. I might not be the most unbiased person here (certainly not the most biased either), but MF has a very serious problem of not respecting other editors, not respecting policy he disagrees with, and acting like a bully to try to get his way. His recent personal attacks on any editor who tried to talk to him about errors he made are unacceptable, but also just his standard operating procedure here. It has to stop.(*See below.)

Someone asked what can be done about it because nothing so far has worked. The answer is simple, and the one Wikipedia has successfully used for years: increasingly lengthy blocks as the behavior continues. Some people have argued that doesn't help anything, but I would offer myself up as an example of it having worked. I tried looking for a list of my blocks by length and date but couldn't figure it out, be the short version is this: When admins could start doubling the length of my blocks, I pitched a fit, I complained about it being unfair, but, you know, after a while I had to choose whether I wanted to start acting more in line with what the community wanted so I could continue to edit here or whether I was willing to stick to my guns and get forced out. And while I'm probably always going to be a bit terse with people who aren't following policy, I'm making the effort, which is something MF cannot say. More importantly, I've not been blocked again for I don't even know how long, and any complaints have been the standard boomerang back on the person complaining situations.

Furthermore, this is what I was expected to follow, and what other editors who found themselves in similar situations had to follow, so I really do not think it's fair that MF has been allowed to not be held to the same standards.

If someone knows how to look up my block stats and wants to post them below my comments in this section as proof, and add any relevant observations, please feel free. Enforcement works, as long as it is done so consistently and fairly. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to the comment below and the post to my talk page asking for evidence of MF's long-running activities ignoring WP:NPOV policy and its WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE offshoots, I honestly thought this part had been done to death and was very well known from prior discussions. In fact, IRWolfie's evidence above, which is the primary reason we're all talking about MF again and I would have thought people would be familiar with, referred to it directly. The whole point of that interaction was the MF made a claim about how NPOV works here that directly contradicted what WP:UNDUE actually says, and when IRW called him on it he became personally abusive. This is certainly not new behavior -- not by any stretch of the imagination. If you want diffs beyond that, they can certainly be provided. DreamGuy (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently striking the whole of the offending paragraph for two reasons: First, because it ought not to stay solely on the basis of the one diff currently here, which taken on its own could just as easily be the result of ignorance of a fundamental policy he was arguing about instead of purposefully trying to distort that policy. (I do wish someone would come up with a tool for rapid sorting of entire contribution histories organized by keyword groupings, because the long way of trying to churn through everything is mind-numbing.) Second, because it's veering off topic anyway, and some people are using this as a distraction. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
And I can't very well strike the original mention and keep later ones... DreamGuy (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

Like so many processes here, the act of "seeking justice" is more disruptive than the act itself by a full factor or more. Being someone who has been on the receiving end of Malleus's disapproval at least twice (including my own RFA) I do seem to notice a double standard here. Malleus can be blunt, and frankly foul mouthed, so can other editors who would normally be warned instead of threatened to be blocked. We can talk of histories, but at some level each instance has to stand on its own. The problem is that his reputation preceeds him and is highly overstated. When he decides to vent and be rude enough to warrant a warning, everything seems to explode into a fury of activity focused on getting him blocked. This puts Malleus on the defensive, which doesn't bring out the best of him either, and the whole event spirals further down hill and pretty soon the "discussion" is more disruptive than anything he had done to begin with. It makes it impossible for any admin to take action or for him to get a fair review, and it ends up in a dogpile at ANI or here. It is the circumstance and not solely him that brings us to that point.

It is no secret that Malleus feels slighted by the system here, and there may be some merit to his claims as we are constantly reviewing and changing at Wikipedia, and there is always room for improvement, and for whatever reason, a crowd always follows. To be blunt, Malleus can be a pain in the ass at times, but he is worthwhile editor who may use crude language on talk pages but has done nothing but good in articles. It is difficult to get an objective action when he does something trout-worthy because there are so many eyes on his every move. We should be exceedingly careful when taking action to insure it isn't punitive. We should lead by example by being as neutal, civil and understanding as we are asking him and every other community member to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

@Dennis Brown: The difficulty with your The problem is that his reputation preceeds him and is highly overstated is that the reputation in question is only one side of a coin. Malleus is a net positive who has an excellent reputation if only certain people would look at the big picture. It seems to me that this really is a case of entrenched camps and, of course, those who have a negative opinion about anything tend to shout louder, not merely here on WP. I too have been called to ANI for incivility etc - on more than one occasion - and I too share the "call a spade a spade" attitude to which Malleus resorts. I suspect that the only real difference is that he has a higher profile than me. Oh, and he has a better command of the nuances of the English language than perhaps not merely myself but most of us.

I was scared shitless when Malleus stepped in to do the GA review of Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer) and, guess what, that was because I had seen so much about that negative reputation but never really had any dealings with the man. He was brilliant then, has been since and, yes, he is a real person with real feelings. I am not going to divulge personal stuff here but this man is incredibly considerate and really does empathise and hold dear his own life experiences. (I have met him once, but we barely spoke on that occasion because everyone else wanted a chat with him!). He is not some sort of "my way or the high way" automaton. While the language can be colourful, if I was subjected to the sort of ganging-up that often follows some minor disagreement or misunderstanding then I too would be telling people to piss off etc. Dammit, I must have a dozen or more quite big disagreements here every week..

What is most needed here is for the "regulars" in the umpteen debates for and against him to back off. Which is why I said nothing in the ANI thread that led to this report. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Franamax

Heh, just refreshed this preliminary to putting my thoughts together. Hi Risker! :) May take a while, but on the way... Franamax (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I feel the one comment made to Wolfe was a typical case of someone getting a bit too frustrated when engaging in a discussion. The rest appears to just be people poking at Malleus with a stick to see how he will react, which is never a good idea. While the initial parties to the dispute may have done this out of ignorance, several who came in later clearly knew with whom they were dealing and, as such, should have known better than to provoke him with comments about his maturity. As it regards the suggested amendment, I see no cause for expanding the restriction. It already clearly provides for banning Malleus from an RFA where he is found to be engaging in the discussion in a disruptive manner and that remedy could have been appropriately acted on in this case. Unless Ent can provide a substantive reason for why the current remedy is insufficient I see no cause for implementing this suggestion. The appropriate place for raising further issues concerning this dispute would seem to be AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ravenswing

Quite aside from the hypocrisy of Wikipedia's double standard in immunizing experienced editors from behavior that'd get anon IPs indef blocked a hundred times over, what is the point of WP:CIVIL if it is not enforced? I am not only sick and tired of MF and his ilk running roughshod over civility, I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy of their supporters, who seem to have chosen sides more along the lines of "I like the guy so anyone asking him to follow Wikipedia rules is a HATER" than for any other consideration. That the very same people often are quite ready to jump on others for incivility, real or imagined, at places like ANI is doubly ironic. Either enforce WP:CIVIL or demote it to an essay, but don't for an instance fancy that it's a net gain to keep a hothead like MF on board, because we lose productive editors who either want no part of such antics, or want no part of a encyclopedia that falsely claims to have civility rules.

That being said, I'm militantly disinterested in the notion that he was "baited" and thus "had" to respond in kind. Quite aside that our rules forbid any such retaliation, quite aside that you'd think someone with such a long block log would have the basic foresight to make a particular effort to keep his nose clean, do some of you truly think that Wikipedia is a children's playground, in which it's de rigeur to respond to playground taunts in kind? Me, I'd rather believe that we are adults, who can be expected to behave in an adult fashion.

Finally, as far as PhilKnight's comments below are concerned, oh please. RfA is a "discussion," not a "vote?" Since when? Would Phil care to share with us the number of nominees who hit 75% and failed to be promoted, as well as the number of nominees who fell below 70% and gained the mop anyway? (If he doesn't, I'll be happy to do so.) This is entirely a headcount, and about as rigid as any Wikipedia has. Ravenswing 04:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

I'm not sure how these AE thingies work, but presumably I'm meant to reply here rather on each individual statement? I only have a few things to say anyway:

  • I have a problem with editors like Nobody Ent, who store up innocuous diffs like this one to boost what at first sight looks like a long list of crimes. The real crime is that kind of dishonest misrepresentation.
  • I note DreamGuy's claim: "I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints." That is simply an outright and blatant lie, and the fact it is allowed to go unchallenged really does demonstrate the corruption at the heart of this civility enforcement charade. But even if it were true, what would that have to do with this request for an extension to my sanction, as opposed to yet another "let's kick Malleus while he's down" episode?
  • Jclemens claims that I have "a reluctance or incapacity to deal politely with users with whom he disagrees", yet anyone paying attention would see that I respond to people in exactly the same way they respond to me. If you want me to be civil to you, then don't try patronising me or taking the piss. If you do, then I'll give it right back to you, and no amount of ArbCom muscle will ever change that.
  • And one final point that may have escaped some viewers; the context for Nobody Ent's crusade to have me banned from something, anything, is an RfA in which I have supported the candidate. In what way could that be described as being "disruptive"? I'm not aware that the candidate has complained, so why has Nobody Ent mounted his hobby horse?
  • I missed the question that Jclemens asked below, "Malleus: even if you don't perceive a problem, acknowledge that others do, and help us craft a workable solution to address those perceived problems that you can live with", but I think I ought to do him the courtesy of answering it. I certainly do acknowledge that some see a problem that I don't, but I think that's because they're looking in the wrong direction, at the wrong things. As far as a "workable solution" goes, I'd suggest an automatic block for any editor starting an ANI topic like the one that resulted in this waste of space. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • One more thing; why is this request for clarification being allowed to degenerate into yet another "we need to get rid of Malleus" fest, as exemplified by the contributions of Resolute and DreamGuy for instance? What we need to get rid of is vindictive editors like them. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • One more more thing, re Cracker92. Isn't it amazing how someone with only 45 edits manages to find their way here to post yet another character assassination in what is nominally supposed to be a request for clarification, not yet another show trial? Aren't these proceedings supposed to be clerked? Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @Scottywong. I suggest that you take your own advice and look a little more closely at both my and your own contributions to individual RfAs. Looking at yours,[36] I see doozies like this: "Yes, god forbid an RfA candidate answers a question honestly. What was he thinking?"[37], and "Neutral badgering appears to be the newest cutting-edge genre of drama generation"[38] and "Don't mind him, he always does this ... Perhaps his username is more apt than I originally thought".[39]. A little self-awareness might go a long way. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

It would have been nice if anyone had dropped me a note that I was being discussed here, but oh well.

I did not bait Malleus Fatuorum in any way, I saw that Malleus Fatuorum had changed someone else's comment (willfully or not), and wanted to draw their attention to it and see their reaction. If their reaction had been "oops, edit conflict" or "weird, no idea how that happened", then we all could have moved along. Instead, I got a very defensive reply. I considered that very telling, and said as much. No idea what was supposed to be "defensive" about that comment, but Malleus Fatuorum did all he could to make the situation worse. Looking at his other contributions from the same day, this turned out to be the standard modus operandi. The only thing I would handle differently the next time is that I would have blocked him for his severe personal attacks (against others, not against me). And now I'm off to ANI to see what was said in that discussion since the time I stopped editing yesterday... Fram (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(by the way, the automated edit summary for this page starts incorrectly: "/* {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment}} */"

Reply to Carcharoth; while your explanation probably makes sense, your solution doesn't. While it may be that he only highlighted it, there is just as much chance that he intended to include that bit of text in his reply. Removing the error robs him from that possibility (or at leaast makes it a lot harder to be aware that part of his reply ended in the wrong place). Of course, if he would have actually checked the diff I posted instead of going all defensive and needlessly escalating things, much could have been prevented, but he was so sure that he would never do such a thing knowingly that he failed to consider the possibility that he might have made an error, instead of the system (edit conflict handling) screwing things up: "it certainly didn't come from me." But he has plainly said that he never even looked at the diff ("I was accused of altering someone's signature, something I would never do, so I didn't even look at the diff."), and so didn't notice that he indeed altered someone else's signature, that it wasn't an edit conflict, and that his hostile reactions were totally unnecessary and unwarranted (but still moderate compared to many other comments he made that day). Fram (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Ched: "he knew full well what he was doing, and the It turns out to be quite telling. comment was a direct and pointed bait of something that Malleus has said before." I'm not quite following you here. I noticed an edit from Malleus Fatuorum that seemed to be at first glance deliberate (it clearly wasn't an edit conflict). I notified him of what happened in a neutral manner though, to give him a chance to check, explain, correct, whatever. Instead, he reacts extremely dismissive and defensive, without even looking at the diff I presented. I considered that response to be quite telling of his approach, not the response of someone who had made a simple error but the response of someone who either has something to hide or otherwise has no interest at all in collaorating with others in a normal, neutral fashion. I don't see what was baiting about this. He had every chance to defuse this thing from the start, e.g. by checking what is said instead of shooting from the hip. He choose not to.
Please explain what "something that Malleus had said before" you had in mind though, as I haven't got a clue what you are implying with this. As far as I know, I hadn't directly interacted with him, I wasn't involved in some of the other disputes he was having, so I don't see what you are hinting at here. What had he said before? Fram (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Reply to 28bytes: I didn't order, I asked. An order is what Malleus Fatuorum gave in his reply. If it would have been a simple straightforward edit conflict, I would have undone it myself, but it wasn't. I thought that much at least was clear by now. And I don't believe that the reactions one gets from one editor can be automatically extrapolated to all other editors. Fram (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Isn't it obvious what happened here? Look at the relevant version of the RFA in question and scroll right down to the bottom (that text stuck in the signature makes no sense). Malleus's response that added that text included the line: "I suggest that you re-read the Earth article, which does link to flat Earth theories". It should come as no surprise that the bit of text that ended up in IRWolfie's signature is a direct copy and paste from the Earth article of the sentence that includes this link (the text is present in this version). Surely what happened here (as User:Br'er Rabbit said above somewhere) is that Malleus had copied the text intending to quote it, or had highlighted it in some way while reading the article and noticing that the article linked to flat Earth theories, and some inadvertent keypress ended up pasting the text? I've done that in e-mails where the cursor ended up somewhere strange and I've been typing and not noticed I was putting text in the wrong place. There is also a common keypress that pastes recently copied text, which I've hit accidentally in the past. What is depressing is how things spiralled out of control from there. All that was needed was to remove the inadvertent text inclusion, and not even notify anyone, it was so obvious it was not intentional. Whether arbitrators want to spend time working out why things went downhill after that is up to them. The original filer of the request may (or may not) have a case to be made about the other diffs presented, but that is mostly being ignored, it seems, in favour of the current drama. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Side topic
Carcharoth: "Ctrl V" is the key stroke for paste on Firefox and IE. Malleus began a sentence in that post with capital B. "Shift B" is adjacent to "Ctrl V" on my keyboard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
There is another keystroke I'm thinking of, one I hit by accident a lot, but can rarely work out what it is as by the time I look down, my fingers have moved on... Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One further point. Reading a couple of the comments here and on user talk pages, there does seem to be something of a generational and cultural conflict here. By that, I mean that some of the animosity seems to arise from attitudes of contempt that are openly expressed (towards those that contribute less content and those who are younger). Some of this seems to be motivated by a desire to 'reform' the community and prompt a change in attitudes, but there is fine line between that and fomenting conflict and battleground attitudes. It is better to write about such things in essays and consider how to gather support for changes that could help. Just sounding off about things in various locations in the middle of random discussions doesn't actually achieve anything. A prime example (and I apologise to Malleus for bringing it up here, but it needs to be said) is this. What exasperates me is the idea that any teenager (or the more impressionable of the early 20s university student demographic) reading that will be anything other than annoyed by that. You don't change attitudes in teenagers by railing at them. You just have to let them grow out of it. Ched in his statement below seems to be asking ArbCom to take the role of parents to teenage children, which is something that is completely unmanageable. Going back to what Malleus said on his user talk page, the image of someone on the internet telling 'kids' on Wikipedia to fuck off is laughable. It's like a red rag to a bull. You just have to learn how to handle yourself on Wikipedia, rather than trying to adapt Wikipedia to suit you (see the George Bernard Shaw quote Malleus provided in that diff). Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

All of you, find something better to do. VolunteerMarek 08:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh screw it, I'll tell you what I really think.

As the guardians of The Wikipedia the ArbCom faces a trilemma. There's really only three possible ways out of this recurring nightmare. Ok, it's actually only a good ol' fashioned dilemma, since two of the options are simply mirror images of each other, but I always like describing a situation as a "trilemma" since that makes it sound a bit more sophisticated. So anyway, here's your options:

The mirror image options, call them Options Alpha and Omega involve slapping the people who do this hard enough so that it doesn't happen again, at least for awhile. The only difference is whom the mighty hand of the ArbCom decides to "admonish". If you choose to follow this path turn to page 68... wait no, if you choose to follow this path then in all honesty the best thing you can do is just flip a freakin' coin and then commence with the smackin'.

Option Alphas - get it over with and indef ban Malleus from The Wikipedia. There'll be gnashing of teeth, complaints about how Courcelles is the new Enver Hoxa (I'm being careful here to avoid violating Goodwin's Law), complaints to Jimbo, people ripping their clothes off in public and wailing like banshees about how The Wikipedia is now ruined for all eternity. But if you just put that little "Do not unblock without permission from ArbCom" (often used on many a less famous user) in the block summary then, after three months or so everyone on this site will be like "Malleus who?". The Wikipedia has short memory and given our current retention rate, as well as all them valiant efforts from Sue Gardner at recruiting new editors, at that point we'll probably have 90% new editors anyway.

Option Omega - go the other way, desysop the fuck (as in desysop them very very strongly) out of all the damn admins who keep bringing this nonsense up, as well as slap all the lesser peeps with a three month site ban. Wait, that's actually milktoasty. No, desysop every admin that has commented on this page so far, on whichever side, and three month site ban any of the lesser peeps.

In the first category this would mean desysopping (like fuck) User:Worm That Turned, User:Sphilbrick, User:Resolute, User:Nikkimaria (you don't get off easy just cuz you're replying to others' statements rather than posting one of your own. Revolutionary justice!), User:Dennis Brown, User:Franamax and User:Fram (I would appreciate it if any of the admins that have commented above would politely get in the appropriate de-sysopping que).

Additionally you would need to three month site ban User:Equazcion, User:Eraserhead1, User:HandThatFeeds, User:IRWolfie-, User:DreamGuy, User:The Devil's Advocate, User:Ravenswing, User:Br'er Rabbit as well as of course... well, myself since I'm in the process of being just as guilty as everyone else, and of course User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Nobody Ent.

That kind of knocking of noggins' together should make it clear to everyone that creating this idiotic drama, on whichever side is just not worth. Of course if you think that this is too much of a purge you could just flip that coin (I know you guys have one, only way to explain past ArbCom decisions) again and desysop, say, 3 out of the 7 administrators, and three month ban 5 out of the 11 non-administrators above.

What would happen then? Well, his three month ban aside, Malleus would probably do a little jig and there'd be some talk on some talk pages about how Malleus fought the law and won or something, but the law is unjust anyway. But in, hell, not even three months, with anyone scared to try and get him blocked again, Malleus would either a) get bored and go back to content editing which is why The Wikipedia keeps him around in the first place, b) get bored and fade away from "the project" like many before him or c) keep talking to himself and his closest buddies in some corner of The Wikipedia that everyone else can safely ignore. Wait - in regard to outcome c)... why isn't this already happening?

Ok, those are the two mirror options but sometimes, having observed an ArbCom case or two I have a feeling neither is going to happen. So you can go with the other corner of the trilemma, the Option ü-lambda (yes, I am aware those two letters are not even in the same alphabet but I'm complicated like that), which stands for "Option Uber-Lame" for those of you who dislike diacritics or something.

Option Ü-Lambda involves the outcome that always occurs but being so brutally honest about what it involves so that the appeal of engaging in this drama is significantly decreased. Basically it means saying to everyone: "You know how the saying says that history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as a farce" (I think I got that wrong but whatevers). Well, what happens if it keeps repeating itself again after it's already been repeated as a farce? History, tragedy, farce... what happens after that? The stupid idiocy we're in that's what. "Farce" is far too noble of a word to describe it with.

So just say it. "We are not going to do crap to anybody because taking an actual stance on this insanely stupid controversy would endanger our chances in the next ArbCom election or might otherwise piss off too many people. Hence we will follow the usual way of The Wikipedia and make pronouncements and pontificate but otherwise do nothing. Thank you for playing, see you next time, but please try, just try to realize how pathetic all of this is". If the ArbCom can just take a leading messianic role in admitting it's ineffectualness and patheticness in the circumstances of this case, perhaps others will too, and sincere heartfelt chest beating mea culpas will result. And the sound of a thousand fists beating against a thousand guilty chest will drown out the wolf cries of the githyanki and usher in a new scarlet dawn of a new millen .... ah sorry, getting lost there. Basically, maybe it will be enough to make at least some of the people involved - Malleus and his friends, his enemies, random passerbys and the ArbCom itself, and hey, me too - stop and think "Wow! I'm being a petty idiotic shit here".

VolunteerMarek 09:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

So I'm looking through the diffs provided by the complainant above expecting to see cunt and fuck-bombs left and right, but instead see stuff like "Fix it yourself" and "I'm actually rather staggered that 25% of the currently active admins can even string two sentences together, never mind take an article through FAC", "You are either joking or innumerate", etc...

My first thought was, "what does innumerate mean?", followed by a trip to Webster, and then a second thought of "we're here for this?" This is milquetoast even by drag-Malleus-to-Arb/ANI standards. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

Here we go again--the predictable ArbCom follow-up to an equally predictable ANI thread. Something goes wrong, Malleus Fatuorum says something wrong, next thing you know we're calling for his head. I read things like "[editor X is] sick and tired of MF and his ilk running roughshod over civility" and can only think "whatever". The generalization is unwarranted, and that MF's supporters are hypocrites is really a personal attack which will no doubt be overlooked. (If I, for instance, were such a hypocrite, it could be proven by my blocking non-MF editors for similar infractions--I challenge anyone to find such examples; the same goes, I have no doubt, for admins like John.) Whatever MF has said in this minor issue is within accepted limits, at least in my book, and if actions can speak louder than words I invite anyone to hear what's being said by starting these repetitive ANI threads: if anything's disruptive it's those escalations. As for this particular request: I do not consider this to have been filed in good faith, with the intent of improving the project or as a desperate attempt to try and resolve the situation, as it was phrased on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cracker92

It's always someone else's fault when it comes to Malleus isn't it? He always gets away with blaming his immature inability to control himself on the other person / the system / the cabal. Nobody else gets away with this when it comes to 'civility enforcement'. At this point, his special treatment is so blatant you're just rubbing everyone else's nose in it now. I'm a wikiholic with many thousands of edits behind me - but I contribute here inspite of the daily examples of unfairness like this - the stats show that plenty of other experienced contributors who aren't as dumb as me and have voted with their keyboards, finding something else to give their time to. It's time arbitrators found an effective way to deal with Malleus. If that means changing policy so that everyone else has the freedom he does, then make it so. If that means banning him and putting a marker down to his enablers, make it so. But for the love of God, do something, before you kill the project through sheer inertia, depriving it of the very people who are needed to continue it. Cracker92 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary distraction closed by clerk.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note that the above editor is not using the account that he's made "thousands" of edits with. He either needs to give full disclosure of his own history, or erase his comments here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that this editor is not a bunny rabbit either. Nor has he disclosed his previous account that I can see from his fun factory of a user page. We all know that genuine new users don't create their user page first, then master subpages with their second edit, then start rvv'ing all over the place. You demand has no basis in policy, so I'll be taking option #3 - ignore it. Cracker92 (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As you already know, but not everyone here might, your situation is being discussed at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We're not supposed to thread comments here, are we? How about sectioning off this procedural comment? (oops) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, what should be done is to erase this entire section, as the editor is totally out of line to be hiding behind a redlink while complaining about someone else's behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's all see the 'red links can't complain about blue links' policy please, before we give your demands any time. Cracker92 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Writegeist

Armageddon Sikkahim!, the new production from The Wikiville Amateur Dramatic Society (WADS) now showing at the Arbcom Theatre, revisits the real-life vicissitudes of small-town writer Patrick O'Dingaugh whose habitual outspokenness brings him into conflict with the town's Civility Police and members of the local Community Church of Pollyanna. His past conviction for blunt speaking while editing an encyclopedia formed the basis for the tragicomic Beastly! Beastly! Beastly!, staged by WADS earlier this year to mixed reviews. In Armageddon Sikkahim! a connected but even more trivial incident is inflated into another screechingly silly melodrama in which O'Dingaugh is exposed as Satan, the townspeople flee, and the town dies. Rumored next in the O'Dingaugh series: O'Dingaugh Ate My Baby! Writegeist (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

@PhilKnight, Newyorkbrad, et al: not acting on the requested modification preserves the status quo of no response to Malleus Fatuorum's latest incivilities. Discussion has been shut down three times on AN/I, twice[40][41] by an administrator hostile to civility enforcement who accuses those asking for civility of disruption and acting in bad faith[42][43][44]), and finally by a nonadmin[45] because there will be no administrative response now that Arbcom is handling it.

Is Arbcom handling it?? What guidance does Arbcom have for the administrators and community when this happens again? Nothing? Malleus does not acknowledge that he should stop, and will surely call some other editor an asshole, worthless clown, waste of space, or idiot in the future. May he be blocked summarily? Only with consensus? May the block be overturned? Admins presumably had the discretion to block Malleus at the time to prevent disruption, but that's stale now. A block would have met opposition, likely a wider dispute, possibly wheel warring as in the past. We've reached a bizarre state where the very discussion of civility is summarily shut down, with participants accused of bad faith and threatened or chastised by partisan administrators who are supposed to be helping. Is the aggrieved editor tendentious and deserving a block for complaining? I urge Arbcom to say something, if only that this level of civility does not merit action (and why). Forget this particular modification proposal and how it was brought. What happens next time? Should the sanction be modified, or enforced at all?

To state my biases, Malleus and I don't cross paths but I have a strong civility expectation of the project. So I admire his contributions and shy from his name-calling from afar. Collegiality and support make it worth venturing from the more cordial environment at say Quora or Yelp, and fleeing the more chaotic blogs and news sites, to contribute hundreds of articles as I have. The occasional abuse I suffer and witness here make me question my commitment. NONE of these sites would condone name-calling of the sort Malleus indulges, not a one. They summarily delete abusive comments and after due warning block or ban the offending user, no drama, no hand-wringing, and no soul searching. Nor would any professionally run website accuse people of baiting, tag-teaming, or plotting for pointing out obvious violations of their abuse policy. Are we in such a la-la land where this is even a question? Even when directed at others, abuse poisons collaborative pages where we're trying to work.

ArbCom ought to weigh in because inaction in the face of trouble is probably the worst choice. When it does, I urge them to consider that the vast majority of users, those who write the articles but do not flock to the notice boards, probably value a civil place to contribute. It is after all one of our founding principles. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

As long as the Arbitration Committee condones (by lack of asserting a firm hand) this childish behavior of provoking and prodding established editors then this type of drama can be expected to continue. I'll agree that Malleus could have easily turned the tide with a "wasn't intended, feel free to fix it" rather than the {{sofixit}} approach. On the other hand; Fram is no N00b here .. he knew full well what he was doing, and the It turns out to be quite telling. comment was a direct and pointed bait of something that Malleus has said before. Br'er Rabbit and Drimes pretty much nailed the basics above here. And in a sense I agree with NY Brad in the "Not impressed" comment - except that I /AM/ impressed ... just not in a positive way. As long as the committee allows these children to run amok tormenting people who actually contribute valuable content to the project - then you'll have to be prepared to deal with this juvenile drivel from the "puling masses". If you cater to these immature editors rather than offering a firm guiding hand .. then expect to hold court to "Lord of the Flies". It's up to you folks .. I really don't care anymore. But if you're gonna sit "on high" and pass judgment, then ya damn well ought to step back and be objective. — Ched :  ?  23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

👍 I've been trying to convince people of that for years. —Jack Merridew 00:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

My sense is that Malleus's enemies are tag-teaming and baiting him in an effort to get him banned and that he hasn't quite figured out how to push back without fouling. He's such an intelligent guy, it's really not that hard. In any event, if discipline is merited it should be directed towards whomever brought this idiotic proceeding and for those who have been baiting Malleus on his talk page. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Keilana

Let's all go write articles. Malleus is damn good at it. We are here to write an encyclopedia, yes? Keilana|Parlez ici 00:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by LadyofShalott

Dreamguy said, "I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints." What!? I've never seen Malleus do that, nor do I think I've even seen that alleged about him before. Diffs are required for such a strong claim of wrongdoing. LadyofShalott 01:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Pesky

I'm only butting in here to pick up on the point (already noticed) about anyone who's not in the out-to-get-Malleus brigade at the far end of this (and similar) deeply polarising situations being referred to as "fan club", "enthusiast", "enabler", and all those other derogatory, demeaning, belittling [add thesaurus here] terms which are so often uncivilly slung about every time something like this rears its head again. It's both (in many cases) completely untrue, and (in most cases) pathetically polarising and moronic. Yes, moronic.

Name-calling is incivility. And it's still incivility when the names are "enthusiast", "enabler", "fan club", "supporter", or anything else along those lines. And, personally, I'm sick of being called names like this by people who either don't "know", me or hardly "know" me, every time there's a conflict. Doesn't anyone accept the possibility that there are actually some good-faith editors in here who'd really like this stuff to be approached in a mature, reasonable, flexible-minded, mediated, think-outside-the-box, constructive (as opposed to destructive) way? So, Arbs, please take note of all the unwarranted personal attacks on the motives, credibility, and personality of the intellectually mature and constructive. And take a good hard look at this kind of incivility which is undermining the strengths of what is allegedly an intellectually-mature society. It's insidious. It's pervasive. It's contemptible. And it's increasing. Pesky (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! Said Zebedee: Where's that "vicious dog" comic strip again? Pesky (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Geogre/Comic ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
@ Scotty: if you compare MF's questionable RfA remarks, stated as a percentage of his total edits, with the same stat for many, many others who make (or have made) similar-type RfA remarks, I think you'll find it's nothing out of the ordinary. Very probably even well below average. Pesky (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Adding: Equazcion has just pointed out (very astutely, and calmly, and correctly), here and on my talk, that in labelling anyone as the "out-to-get-Malleus brigade" I fell into the exact same pattern of name-calling myself! Mea culpa. Yes, I did. My apologies, I shouldn't have done that. Pesky (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Discusssion with Fram

Fer gawd's sake! I lost count of the number of times I've accidentally put something in the wrong place a long time ago! If you check the history of this page, you'll even notice that I did it here, too. And removed it with an edit summary of "bugger; I put that in the wrong place!" Pesky (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
So someone responds like I do, and someone else suggests that the person who noticed it could fix it. Yes, if I notice that someone's left a coffee-ring on a shelf, I wipe it up myself. And if someone irritates me in here, I tend to look and see if Hanlon's razor is applicable, rather than shrieking over here or at AN/I about it. But we're all different. Nuking London would annihilate the litter problem. But it's an OTT reaction, don't you think? Pesky (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That would have been a good question to ask at the time. Adding: something along the lines of "There seems to have been some kind of glitch / ec thing here: not sure how to clean it up, could you take a look please?" Pesky (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not really interested in helping someone who gets so defensive and impatient without even checking what my post was about. I wouldn't call "Fix it yourself." (with the edit summary "jeez!") a "suggestion" or an invitation for further questions. Fram (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

Somebody pokes the bear with a stick, the bear growls at them, and they go running and crying "Mommy, the nasty bear growled at me - shoot the bear, Mommy!" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes

I have lost count of the number of times I've silently fixed somebody else's edit conflict, inadvertent misplaced text-paste or accidental rollback. That would have been a good approach to use here, instead of confronting someone on their talk page to "see how they might react." I would think that from Fram's extensive interactions with Rich Frambrough, he would know that people do not, in fact, react particularly well to being ordered to fix something.

Why anyone was motivated to start an AN/I thread over this utterly trivial argument – much less drag ArbCom into it – is a mystery to me. This can and should have been resolved entirely on the user talk pages of the editors concerned. I would love it if ArbCom were to give some guidance to that effect to the people who decided to escalate this dispute and spread it to AN/I and here. 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Scottywong

I don't have much to say, but I feel there is a relatively widely-held opinion (with which I agree) that Malleus' contributions to anything related to RfA are usually more disruptive than not. For whatever reason, he seems to have a problem with the majority of users who have an admin bit. I think the situation would be further simplified by extending Malleus' topic ban to any page starting with either "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship" or "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship". In my opinion, the topic ban should have been that broad from the start. A quick look at his recent RfA edits shows a consistently combative and disruptive attitude (which is somewhat normal for Malleus, but not welcome at a place as sensitive as RfA). -Scottywong| talk _ 02:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
This is a reminder to all editors that they should comment in their own sections only. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statements. My initial impression is that Malleus Fatuorum's conduct is problematic enough to justify the continuation of his current restriction, however, I'm disinclined to limit his involvement in the Request for Adminship process, in what after all is a discussion, as opposed to a vote. If his conduct substantially deteriorated, then I think we have to look at banning him from the entire process, but I'm not convinced we're at that juncture just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The fact that Malleus has such excellent editing skills, as demonstrated by his content contributions over time, and such a reluctance or incapacity to deal politely with users with whom he disagrees, as demonstrated by his discussion contributions over time, is vexing. I do believe we tried the "can't you please just get along with others?" approach last time, and while there's nothing terribly worse than last go-round in the evidence, I don't see how things have particularly improved on Malleus' part, either. I'm open to ideas on how to "fix" the problem, and specifically from you, Malleus: even if you don't perceive a problem, acknowledge that others do, and help us craft a workable solution to address those perceived problems that you can live with. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I want to hear from Franamax. Could a clerk please ping him? Malleus, I assume, knows about this request. Risker (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not impressed by some of the user conduct here, but I don't see how the proposed amendment would improve the situation, so I don't support action on this request. Regarding the broader situation, I suppose the takeaway is that those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to spend too-large portions of their wikilives on the arbitration pages. What I have said to Malleus Fatuorum before, and now repeat, is that I respect his view that serious editors should spend most of their wikitime on content creation, but the way in which his wordings sometimes inflame and prolong disputes has predictable effects that are inconsistent with that goal, and if for this reason alone, he should reconsider his approach. (It is well-known that Malleus Fatuorum has low regard for me, so he may not take my thoughts seriously, but that is neither here nor there.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    • On my talkpage, Malleus Faturoum has disagreed with the last sentence of my comment. That being that case, I hope he will give the balance of what I have said very careful attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've looked back at Malleus's RfA contributions since August last year and I find that he engages in a robust manner, joining in as well as initiating discussions, and sometimes picking out points in other people's comments and responding to them. Other than this I have found no other clear instances of incivility, and no clear evidence of Malleus doing worse than other regular RfA commentators. I have seen him being accused of badgering when joining in a discussion thread or asking for clarification of someone's comment. However, RfA is a discussion process, and sometimes it is helpful to engage with others in that discussion to clarify their views - this is not badgering. While I feel it is worthwhile to offer a reminder/warning to Malleus to ensure that comments he makes anywhere on Wikipedia are not personalised in a manner that any reasonable person would read as insulting and unnecessary (such as "you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought"), I don't think his general involvement in RfA is such to make a restriction. If people are concerned about the robustness and general tone of discussions on RfA, that is a matter for everyone, not just one user. I'm not in favour of this amendment, and I feel that "should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA" is sufficient, and encourage admins to carry this out and Malleus to accept that if he insults someone in an RfA he will be told to take no further part in it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm getting the impression everyone's moving on. Ultimately the main thing is that the big wheels' keep on churning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Silk's points are worth taking to heart. Banning a user from a discussion process on account of their behavior does not address the root of the issue in any way; editors should be held to the same standards of conduct no matter where they are on the project. I encourage uninvolved admins to use the case remedies as necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Eastern Europe (July 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Nug (talk) at 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Nug

Are Admins required to place the notice of discretionary sanction on IPs, particularly static IPs, and add them to WP:ARBEE#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice? In two recent 3RN cases[46][47], User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked both User:Jaan (and FPoS did not take into account there was no diff warning Jaan, unlike admin Kuru did in a subsequent case[48]) and User:16.120.84.244 for breaching the 3RR rule. He subsequently noticed Jaan[49] and added him to the log[50], but did not do the same for the static IP. I asked him why[51], but seems to be ignoring my question[52]. It seems other admins treat IPs equally, for example User_talk:184.36.234.102, but apparently not FPaS. Could the Committee give direction on this. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

FPaS states: "I didn't feel like it, because the IP editor was new to the area and I wasn't yet seeing a consistent pattern of problems." seems somewhat disturbing. Jaan had a clean block log and four GAs (while nowhere near as many as some of the Wiki-superstars is still pretty good in the Baltic topic area), so what "consistent pattern of problems" did FPaS observe in Jaan? I don't recall Jaan ever being involved in revert wars previously. Did he observe Jaan was from Estonia from his user page and concluded "Yep, from Estonia, therefore a problem", then added an Arb notice for good measure? --Nug (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

[Annoyed grunt] by Fut.Perf.

This is about nothing. I gave two users a standard (and therefore unlogged) 3RR block. I gave one of them a standard (and properly logged) arb warning at the same time. This is not about formalities of logging stuff, nor about how to treat IPs. It's simply about the fact that Nug, POV ally of the editor I warned, is unhappy I didn't warn the other guy too. Well, so what? I didn't feel like it, because the IP editor was new to the area and I wasn't yet seeing a consistent pattern of problems. But I warned him now, because he resumed edit-warring in the same way immediately after coming back from the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As it says on the tin, "All sanctions imposed under the provisions of a particular arbitration case are to be logged in the appropriate section of the case page".  Roger Davies talk 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The existence of discretionary sanctions doesn't change the ability of admins to hand out standard, garden-variety edit-warring blocks. Of course, whether a block is filed as an AE block or not does change whether the restrictions on removing an AE block come into play. But there is nothing in the rules that requires a block that could be filed as an AE one be so filed. But, if an IP is going to be sanctioned under AE, the paperwork must be done, just as if it was an account that is blocked. Also, as far as I'm concerned, the templated notification is basically an individual "heads up" regarding the different conditions some articles operate under, and not some form of indictment of wrong-doing. Courcelles 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • An admin may elect to use AE sanctions or community sanctions according to their judgement of the circumstances, so Fut.Perf.'s explanation seems reasonable. Where Fut.Perf may have erred, was in not responding to a legitimate query as to his actions as admins are accountable for their actions: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." However, as it was the same day as posting the question that this clarification was opened, it's possible that Nug may have been a little impatient, and a second request to Fut.Perf. would have been more in keeping with the collegiate environment we attempt to create. There is no obligation on any user to answer queries in any particular order, and it is not uncommon for people to work upwards on their talkpage rather than downwards, or even to miss a query if a second one came in quickly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I pretty much agree with Courcelles and SilkTork. In any event, this seems moot now, as the static IP has been warned as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Date delinking (July 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Gimmetoo (talk) at 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Gimmetoo

As a result of motions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, Ohconfucius editing of date-related material is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, though it is unclear what provisions could be used for enforcement.

This clarification concerns two issues.

First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow WP:DATERET and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI [54] [55] [56] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [57], where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by WP:MOSDATE#In references as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See User talk:Ohconfucius#More editing problems. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing. [58] [59] [60]

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

Statement by Ohconfucius

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The principle behind DATERET (we have an acronym for that now?) was primarily focussed on dates with written months. The use of "ISO" dates has been discussed extensively, and it appears a number of otherwise sane and well-informed Wikipedians had never run across the format before, and were confused, mystified and dismayed by it. For myself this reduced my support for such dates for access date fields from firm to dubious. Nonetheless proper usability statistics should be gathered before coming to a firm conclusion on this, and in general it should be noted that OhConfucious' efforts in this sphere are reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Ohconfucius seems to have retired. I suppose this request should be suspended or dropped. I strongly disagree with Rich's statement that OhConfucious's efforts are "reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented", but WP:DEADHORSE seems to apply here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow WP:DATERET, as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. Risker (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him?  Roger Davies talk 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: WP:ARBMAC — expand / clarify existing Balkans sanctions to cover Cyprus (July 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by — Richwales at 06:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Richwales

This decision currently authorizes discretionary sanctions for "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted". I am requesting a clarification, stating that Cyprus is included in the scope of this remedy. Although Cyprus is not geographically close to the Balkans, it is intimately tied (historically and culturally) to both Greece and Turkey. Thus, I propose that Cyprus-related articles naturally fall under this topic area.

Cyprus-related articles have been subjected to continual edit-warring for years from tendentious editors on both sides — including, in particular, the disruptive activities of the banned user Justice Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his long list of socks — and I believe further options should be made available to help administrators keep these articles better under control.

I am particularly concerned that the dominance of sockpuppet investigation as the primary tool for keeping this topic area under control not only limits enforcement activities to a relatively small group of users who are experienced and confident sock hunters, but it also creates a risk (level currently unknown and possibly unknowable) that opinionated (but innocent) editors who might decide to get involved in the Cyprus topic area could be mistaken for socks and chased away from the project.

Affected articles would include Northern Cyprus, Nicosia, North Nicosia, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Makarios III, and presumably every other article in Category:Cyprus and its subcategories.

I'm not imagining that extending discretionary sanctions to this topic area will magically make all the problems go away. However, with a subject as contentious (IMO) as Kosovo, Northern Ireland, or Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, it seems to me that adding this additional level of supervision over the Cyprus topic area can't hurt and may very possibly help. — Richwales 06:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If (per Jclemens' suggestion) we were to have a wide-ranging "disputed territories" sanctions category, one additional region to which expanded sanctions could reasonably apply would be Georgia, due to ongoing editing disputes over the disputed territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If the blanket sanctions idea doesn't fly, I may consider requesting something for Georgia after we're done here. — Richwales 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment: While the current (and probably the main ongoing) point of irritation at Northern Cyprus has indeed been the incessant disruptive socking by Justice Forever, there have been other incidents in the past — such as some low-level edit warring and lengthy talk-page arguments revolving around at least one pro-Greek editor — activity which did a lot of simmering without really coming to a full boil, but which (IMO) could easily have escalated out of control. I didn't bring this up earlier because the worst of it ended several months ago and it didn't result in any outside intervention at the time, but if ArbCom feels this additional material should be cited in order to give a larger view of the overall situation, I can supply diffs. — Richwales 07:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm appreciative of everyone's comments. Assuming (as seems likely now) that my original request is not going to get approved, what would people suggest as a next step? Requesting an arbitration case against Justice Forever would be silly, to say the least. Should someone come back requesting arbitration on the very next disruptive incident (involving someone other than Justice Forever) at Northern Cyprus, Nicosia, or any other article dealing with this general subject? Is there any proper way to suggest adoption of a "politically disputed geographic areas" sanction without a new test case? Any other ideas? — Richwales 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

While it is undeniable that Cyprus is an area for contentious claims, it is also undeniable that it is not Balkan, and extending definitions to the breaking point could mean we should add a host of such areas to that same title <g>. If ArbCom decided to, it could, by motion, add Cyprus to almost any decision, I suppose, but I question the wisdom of doing so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The scope of Wikipedia rules, including Arbcom decisions, should be dictated not by the scope of this or that geographical concept out there, but by the necessities of Wikipedia-internal situations. Given the connectedness of conflict areas and the similarity of situations, I see no problem with treating Cyprus in the same context as Greece and Turkey, of whose overall historical conflict lines the Cyprus conflict is a mere appendix. This is no different than treating Slovak or Hungarian issues under WP:ARBEE. Geographically, both countries are not in Eastern Europe either, but in Central Europe by most definitions. But what counts for us are not these geographical delimitations, but the nature of the conflicts in question. WP:ARBEE is essentially for post-Soviet-era and post-WWII ethnic conflicts; WP:ARBMAC is essentially for post-Ottoman ethnic conflicts. As such, Cyprus falls naturally under the latter, if we want it to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Risker's oppose vote: I'd actually agree that an extension to Cyprus is not an immediate, high-priority necessity. The main source of disruption in this field, as far as I can see, is the perennial socking problem of a single banned user, for which standard admin procedure is of course applicable, and apart from that the disruption levels don't seem to be those of a current virulent hotspot. But just to respond to your point about "expansionist" treatment of the sanctions to areas you never reviewed, and that are not "the same" as the original one: well, that was never a problem for ARBMAC sanctions in general. What you reviewed back in that case was a small set of disputes between Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian editors. From there, the decision went straight to a discretionary sanctions regime that covered all of the Balkans. The Balkans are a big place. This rule has always been applied to dozens and dozens of unrelated disputes that you didn't review originally – from Italian-Croatian stuff via Bosnia, WWII Yugoslav partisans, Kosovo, internal Greek politics, Greek-Turkish disputes, you name it. It's been an "expansionist" ruling from the start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo

There are two reasons that I see why Cyprus should be included in the Balkans and the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions: 1) The conflicting parties in Cyprus are Greece and Turkey, which are both also involved in Balkan disputes, and 2) many of the same editors who were active in the Macedonian decision, especially from the Greek perspective, are also involved in issues surrounding Cyprus. Dealing with the same group of editors in a similar conflict area argues for inclusion in the WP:ARBMAC discretionary world. (But I hasten to note that the Greek-oriented editors actively involved at Northern Cyprus, for example, are not the source of the typical problems at that page.) --Taivo (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Screw it all by Heim

To SilkTork, Risker and all the rest saying we need an actual case before discretionary sanctions: You do realize this is exactly why editors like me would rather have our toenails pulled out than get involved in dealing with nationalist troll-infested areas? When it comes to an actual case, while the nationalists may get banned, you will also be desysopped. You guys taught me a lesson in ArbMac2: get involved in a nationalist dispute that makes it to ArbCom and you are at risk of desysopping, and I've learnt it well and not gotten involved in any more. Plenty of nationalistic areas of Wikipedia may have gone to hell because of the people you've driven away, but who gives a crap? Procedure's been followed! Yay us! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response in the arbitrator section below. (Temporary IAR derogation from the edit-your-own-section rule to make sure Heimstern sees this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NYB, I'm having a hard time thinking we even edit the same Wikipedia. I have not once seen a nationalism-related RFAr that didn't look like hell to go through. The Senkaku Islands one was reasonably nice to the admins who weren't pushing POVs, but even so, people got pushed around by the nationalist policy-abusers during the case and before, it too. And that's the real issue; it's not just having to go through the case, it's running the bloody gantlet required to get a case accepted in the first place that burns admins out and leads to the very incivility that gets their butts roasted when the case finally does come to be. As for ANI, I have not once found a consensus can arise for sanctions there on any topic not widely discussed in Anglophone countries for simple lack of interest from most people who are not the nationalists themselves or one of the rather small band of editors trying to rein them in. (Hence abortion, yes; Britian-Ireland, yes; India-Pakistan, no. There may have been one or two exceptions, but in general, we can't get sanctions without committee approval.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me give this some more thought. The general problem needs solving, for sure. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Belated statement by bobrayner

I firmly agree that there is a "Cyprus problem" in the same way that there is a "Macedonia problem", a "Kosovo problem", and so on - many of those problems are currently under the ARBMAC umbrella. Cyprus-related articles get exactly the same kind of problematic editing. However, looking at it from other angles, the problem is different (different articles are a battleground, different sources are used/abused, &c and most problematic editors are more focussed than Justice Forever). Roberts once wrote something clever about how several seemingly-separate national conflicts are arguably just fights over different parts of the Ottoman succession; I'd include Cyprus in that. ARBMAC is focussed on the problematic editing rather than on the other angles so in that sense it's sensible to stretch it a little and I strongly support RichWales' proposal. However, I would also be happy with responding under a different banner if other editors are unhappy with the geographical shift - as long as we can improve how we deal with the nationalist editwarring and pov-pushing, I'm happy. Sorry for the belated response; I realise it's probably a moot point by now. bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Hi Rich, I would have thought that Cyprus is already covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that Cyprus is part of either "the Balkans" or "Eastern Europe" as those terms are currently understood, and I don't think that we can redefine Cyprus's geographical location by fiat. That being said, I'd welcome input into what is the best way to proceed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • To HeimsteinLaufer, please note that a case does not necessarily have to be a months-long, drawn-out cataclysmic disaster area. If a case is filed with the recommendation that we authorize discretionary sanctions as the remedy, and evidence is presented that this would be helpful to the admins keeping an eye on the topic-area, then we will do it, without threats of deysopping anyone or anyone else. Alternatively, a request for community-imposed discretionary sanctions could be made on AN/ANI. In other words, I agree with you that "procedure for procedure's sake" (and driving away good editors and admins in the process) is very rotten—but this Committee running around imposing sanctions regimes in areas we haven't examined would be problematic too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that we've got discretionary sanctions in place for almost every other contested geographical area in the world, maybe what we need is a blanket, worldwide list of such places? I agree with NYB that it's not really covered by either of the cited geographical categories... but the problems are probably such that similar conduct expectations and remedies should apply. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no problems placing Turkey and Cyprus under the ARBMAC sanctions; Greece is already included as being on the Balkan Peninsula, and the conflicts in the area are similar if only as they present themselves through similar bad behaviour on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courcelles (talk • contribs)
  • In the interests of utility, I'd be happy to include Cyprus under the same conditions rather than wait for a new case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There may be a benefit in replacing the Balkans DS with a fresh set covering the geographical area of the former Ottoman Empire but that would need greater review than a request for clarification.  Roger Davies talk 08:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the concerns raised above regarding the various unpleasantries involved in a full-fledged arbitration case, would it perhaps be beneficial to consider a request whose scope would explicitly be limited to examining whether discretionary sanctions should be imposed, and which would not examine the conduct of individual editors beyond that? Kirill [talk] 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Motion (Macedonia)

For the purposes of enforcement action under this case, the discretionary sanctions shall apply to the Balkans, Turkey, Cyprus, and the generally unrecognized state of Northern Cyprus, all broadly construed.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Copyedit as necessary, but essentially broad enough to put anything regarding the Cyprus dispute under this case. Courcelles 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support, but again, just as we have "standard discretionary sanctions" for topic area, I suspect the time is right to have a list of "politically disputed geographic areas" and place all such features under a consistent set of restrictions. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  3. I'm ok with this, however it would be preferable just to say 'the island of Cyprus', which would include the British bases that are neither part of Cyprus the country or North Cyprus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  4. We are refusing to expand the discretionary sanctions to this obviously problematic sub-topic because there has not yet been a full case. However, if such a case was opened, the result would almost certainly be to authorise discretionary sanctions anyway. We are not talking about customised, targeted remedies, but our catch-all, standardised DSs which are designed to allow chronic problems to be handled through enforcement. Although some clear differences exist, there is enough overlap between these geographical entities for me to feel comfortable in taking the short route; we don't need to arrive at the obvious outcome by means of a protracted, difficult case. (I wouldn't go as far as JCl. and say that we need to start authorising DSs for every nationalist dispute; the community can do that should it see fit.) AGK [•] 13:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I can in no way support an expansionist view here. None of the statements made above indicate that this is the *same* dispute expanding into a new area; instead, the impression is that it is a different dispute, one which Arbcom hasn't adjudicated at any point. I'm not prepared to put the Arbitration Committee imprimatur on sanctions for disputes we've never reviewed. Disruptive editing is just that, socking is just that, and all the discretionary sanctions in the world aren't going to affect either one of them any more than normal blocking will. Risker (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  2. In part per Risker. This does seem to be a different dispute, and I reject FPaS's assertion that this is already an expansionist topic; yes, that particular case began with a somewhat localized dispute, but the finding of fact notes that the Committee at the time was taking past cases into account as well. The Balkans-wide restriction was simply a consolidation of multiple cases and not an over-reaching grab into areas that had not been reviewed. Further to that, however, if the major source of disruption centers on a single user violating existing policies, then I don't see the need to extend discretionary sanctions (which could be applied to ANY user) to this topic area. That seems to be punishing the largely innocent users who are simply trying to protect the topic area from a sockpuppeteer. I can understand the concerns of misidentifying new users as socks, however I really don't see that this would prevent that from happening. If anything, it'll only make it worse. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  3. I appreciate the WP:BOLD approach in the motion, as well as RichWales' concerns that there are problems in this topic-area, but on balance I find myself agreeing more with Risker's and Hersfold's points, at least at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  4. I'm also not prepared to either expand existing sanctions to include new geographical areas without a case or to expand the geographical bounds of the Balkans so radically that it includes Cyprus.  Roger Davies talk 08:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  5. If there are concerns which the community cannot deal with then let us have a proper case to examine the issues. If the concerns are not yet sufficient to involve the Committee then I prefer that we do not summarily or pre-emptively use Committee protection. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  6. Per Silk and Risker. Applying the same remedies to different issues without a case seems like a good way of enflaming the issue rather than addressing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  7. I was going to support in the interests of utiliity but the more I think about it, the more I think we need to hear a proper case about the issue if concerns have arisen, rather than expand sanctions from a geographically similar but non-identical scenario. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_61&oldid=1142656147"